France’s new environment minister just announced the Macron Administration’s first series of new environmental measures, which aim to make the country carbon-neutral by 2050. These measures were also created with the intention of maintaining the country’s leadership in fulfilling the commitments created by the Paris Agreement.

One of the more ambitious portions of this plan was the announcement that France plans to ban all petrol and diesel vehicles by 2040. This would inevitably force the country’s car owners to switch to electric and hybrid cars–which Volvo announced Wednesday it would start exclusively producing in 2019. Part of the plan includes providing lower income households with aid so they can swap their polluting vehicles for cleaner alternatives.

Ecology Minister Nicolas Hulot called the move a “veritable revolution” and “a way to fight against air pollution” as a question of public health policy. He added that while it might seem like a difficult objective for France’s car manufacturers to accomplish, they have the resources and plans in place to do so successfully. Automotive experts have agreed with Hulot’s statements.

“The timescale involved here is sufficiently long term to be taken seriously,” said Professor David Bailey, an automotive industry expert at Aston University. “If enacted it would send a very clear signal to manufacturers and consumers of the direction of travel and may accelerate a transition to electric cars.”

With these new measures, France has joined the Netherlands, Norway, Germany, and India as countries that plan on eliminating internal combustion engine-powered cars to some degree before 2030. It also coincides with a Bloomberg News Energy Finance report that predicts electric cars will make up 54 percent of all light-duty vehicles by 2040, up 19 percent from what was previously thought.

Other French environmental plans include eventually ending the importation of products that contribute to deforestation around the world–particularly in the Amazon rainforest, Congo, and South-East Asia–such as palm oil and unsustainably grown soya. Hulot stated that deforestation represents 10 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, and added that it would be “schizophrenic” to encourage the continued production of these items. France has also pledged to reduce nuclear energy from 75 per cent to 50 per cent of the country’s energy mix by 2025.

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post France Reveals Series of New Environmental Measures appeared first on Law Street.

The French government announced on Tuesday that parents will be legally obligated to vaccinate their children starting in 2018.

Currently, French law makes vaccines for three diseases mandatory–diphtheria, tetanus, and polio–while the rest, including vaccines for hepatitis and whooping cough, are only recommended. This change will make all 11 vaccines that are universally recommended by health authorities compulsory.

France has fallen victim to a measles outbreak that the World Health Organization has warned will sweep across Europe. There were 79 cases of measles reported in January and February alone, mostly due to an outbreak of 50 cases in the north-eastern Lorraine region, according to the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. From 2008 to 2016, more than 24,000 cases of measles were found in France, according to the country’s public health authority. Approximately 1,500 of those cases involved serious complications and 10 people died.

Other European countries have enacted compulsory vaccination measures to combat declining immunization rates. Italy–where cases of measles rose more than five-fold in April relative to the same month last year–recently made 12 vaccines mandatory for children attending school up to age 16 and banned all non-vaccinated children from attending state schools. Beatrice Lorenzin, the Italian health minister, said the legislation was in response to “an emergency generated by fake news.”

The “fake news” that Lorenzin refers to is misinformation about vaccinations. Italy’s populist Five Star Movement was recently blamed for the outbreak of measles cases in the country because of its outspoken opposition to vaccines. Even as recently as 2012, a court in Rimini awarded damages to a family claiming its son had become autistic because of vaccines, though the decision was eventually overturned on appeal. A recent survey even found that more than three in 10 French citizens don’t trust vaccines, and only 52 percent of those vaccinated said the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks.

Fears surrounding vaccines are typically linked to a discredited study by disgraced former doctor Andrew Wakefield, who claimed to show a link between the inoculation and autism. In the United States, for example, these fears still persist. A 2015 Gallup poll found that 6 percent of Americans believe vaccines cause autism and that the number of people who believe it is “extremely important” to vaccinate their kids has gone down 10 percentage points over the last 14 years.

Recent attempts to put compulsory vaccination into law are the latest developments in what has been a longstanding campaign. In the 20th century, many countries enacted such measures as the first few vaccines became available to the public. In 1905, the Supreme Court ruled in Jacobson v. Massachusetts that states could compel vaccination for the “common good.” At the same time, Brazil attempted to enforce compulsory vaccination laws that allowed government workers to force vaccination on citizens in lower income areas of Rio de Janeiro, which ultimately led to the Vaccine Revolt.

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post France to Make 11 Vaccines Mandatory for All Children in 2018 appeared first on Law Street.

French President Emmanuel Macron and his allies won a large majority in the country’s second and final round of parliamentary elections on Sunday. While Macron captured the seats he needs to carry out his centrist agenda, the election saw a record-low turnout, suggesting that much of the country is unenthusiastic about the young leader’s ability to change realities on the ground.

Macron’s En Marche party and its ally, the Democratic Movement, picked up 350 spots in the 577-seat National Assembly, Parliament’s powerful lower chamber. The vote was a repudiation of France’s establishment parties, as the center-right Republicans captured 135 seats, while the left-leaning Socialist bloc won 45 seats. Led by Macron’s deeply unpopular predecessor, Francois Hollande, the Socialists dominated the 2012 election, winning both the presidency and a majority in Parliament.

“A year ago, no one could have imagined such a political renewal,” Prime Minister Édouard Philippe said on Twitter. Referring to the record abstention rate–only 43 percent of eligible voters went to the polls–he added: “Abstention is never good news for democracy. The government interprets it as a strong obligation to succeed.”

Fatigue could account for the record-low turnout–there were two rounds of presidential voting in May plus two rounds of parliamentary voting in June. But more likely, a majority of French voters are simply unsure about Macron’s program. According to Luc Rouban, a professor at the Center for the Study of French Political Life at Sciences Po, “Many people are in a state of uncertainty.”

“The level of abstention in the second round is a sign that a large part of the working-class electorate are not going to vote anymore,” Rouban told the New York Times.

Contrary to France’s traditional left-right politics, Macron, 39, ran on a centrist platform that advocated for continued integration with the European Union, and shedding restrictions on businesses. Since ascending to the presidency, many observers have applauded Macron’s interactions with leaders who would like to see the Western liberal alliance erode, like Russian President Vladimir Putin. But still, for French voters, Macron has a lot to prove.

The poles of France’s political spectrum also suffered a convincing defeat on Sunday–Le Pen’s far-right National Front picked up nine seats, while the far-left leader Jean Luc Melenchon and his allies won 27 seats. Aside from the rejection of the left and right, French politics are changing in other ways: over 200 women were elected to Parliament, a record in France’s modern history.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Macron Wins Large Parliamentary Majority Despite Low Turnout appeared first on Law Street.

On Tuesday, a man attacked a police officer outside of the Notre-Dame Cathedral in Paris. The man reportedly swung a hammer at the officer, and also had knives on him. Another quick-thinking officer shot him in the chest and the first officer was not seriously injured. French Interior Minister Gerard Collomb later said the man shouted, “This is for Syria” as he attacked.

The man was taken to the hospital and the situation was quickly contained, but as it happened, many feared a larger terrorist attack was taking place, only days after the attack in London. People on social media said they were escorted inside the cathedral and asked to put their arms in the air. Nancy Soderberg, a former White House Deputy National Security Adviser under President Clinton, was among those in the cathedral.

Locked inside #notre dame cathedral in #paris while police investigate attack outside against a policeman. All calm pic.twitter.com/Z4B8wUzPTV

— Nancy Soderberg (@nancysoderberg) June 6, 2017

France has been in a state of emergency ever since the terror attacks that shook Paris in November 2015, and Tuesday’s incident caused panic on the streets of central Paris. However, thanks to the high-security alert, a lot of officers were patrolling the streets and the attacker was rendered harmless quickly. The 900 people inside the cathedral reportedly remained calm until they were allowed to exit again.

Notre-Dame: de nombreux effectifs se dirigent vers le lieu pic.twitter.com/FWWAGJzoW0

— David Perrotin (@davidperrotin) June 6, 2017

Authorities have not released the name of the suspect but said he was carrying identification that showed he is an Algerian student. His motives remain unclear but he seemed to be acting by himself and it didn’t seem like a very well planned attack. “One sees that we have gone from a very sophisticated terrorism to a terrorism where, in the end, any tool can be used to carry out attacks,” said Collomb, the Interior Minister. Prosecutors launched an anti-terrorism investigation into the incident.

France has seen several separate attacks recently, many of which targeted police officers or soldiers. A man stabbed two police officers, a couple, to death last June; a month later, another man drove a truck into a crowd in Nice killing more than 80 people; in March, a man attacked a soldier at the Orly airport; and a gunman fired shots at a police van on the Champs-Élysées in April.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Paris Anti-Terrorism Prosecutor Launches Probe into Hammer Attack appeared first on Law Street.

On Sunday, Emmanuel Macron won the French presidential election, defeating far-right populist and nationalist candidate Marine LePen. Once he is inaugurated on May 14, the centrist politician will have to address his constituents’ worries about unemployment and terrorism in a divided country.

But across the Atlantic Ocean, the most pressing concern for many Twitter users was whether or not Macron (who will become France’s youngest president at age 39) is more attractive than Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

Congratulations @EmmanuelMacron! Let’s meet soon, and keep working to grow & strengthen the deep ties between Canada and France.

— Justin Trudeau (@JustinTrudeau) May 7, 2017

There are few things the Internet loves more than two good-looking, young-ish, and charismatic world leaders befriending each other–just look at the infatuation with Trudeau and former President Barack Obama. So when Trudeau congratulated Macron on his victory, the idea of two good-looking, young-ish, and charismatic world leaders, who also speak French befriending each other sent some people over the edge.

How is the internet going to cope when Macron & Trudeau eventually meet and discuss politics in French?

— cordney (@courtwhip) May 7, 2017

me when justin trudeau and emmanuel macron meet & speak french together pic.twitter.com/rM5WgPtNIh

— Dr. Mantis Toboggan (@beaarthur85) May 8, 2017

Let the Macron-Trudeau fan fiction begin! pic.twitter.com/NDvXsClpgb

— Jaime Woo (@jaimewoo) May 7, 2017

However, not everyone was enamored.

Trudeau has a 48% approval rating, and Macron’s agenda is unpopular and opposed by most French. But they’re good looking!

— Zaid Jilani (@ZaidJilani) May 9, 2017

Some are hoping the two leaders can get together to accomplish more than just a photo op or bromance.

Emmanuel Macron x Justin Trudeau goodness (credit to my former schoolmate Sulaiman Daud) pic.twitter.com/WAnICRz2ZU

— Adibah (@mmonchatsplash) May 8, 2017

BEST TRUDEAU-MACRON FANFIC:

Trudeau: Hey, man lets do some policy and not blow the world up or be insane

Macron: Oui oui

— St. Lucia (@luciaannv) May 9, 2017

Though President Donald Trump also took to Twitter to congratulate Macron, chances of a friendship between U.S. and France may not be as high. Trump had previously called Le Pen the “strongest” candidate in the election, praising her positions on terrorism and borders.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Twitter Fantasizes About Eventual Meetup Between Macron and Trudeau appeared first on Law Street.

The world watched with bated breath on Sunday to see if the tide of nationalism sweeping through Western democracies would rise even higher in France. By voting in Emmanuel Macron–a proponent of the European Union–the French people, for the time being, stemmed that rising tide. But Sunday’s election, in which Macron won over 66 percent of the vote, was not a death knell for populism.

Marine Le Pen, the face of France’s populist movement, was roundly defeated by Macron, but one-third of the country supported her populist nationalism and anti-EU posturing. Equally as important to the future of France, however, is the parliamentary elections set to take place between June 11 and 18, which will shape France’s government and determine the length of Macron’s leash as he pursues his agenda.

As France moves beyond this divisive election, it is unclear exactly where it is heading. For one, Le Pen’s National Front party resonated with some 10 million people, a great deal more than it did in 2002 when her father was crushed in the run-off by Republican Jacques Chirac. But the far-right National Front was not the only fringe player this time around. Far-left candidate Jean-Luc Mélenchon attracted hordes of young people and others who are equally as disaffected by the European project and its moneyed elites.

Populist yearnings, or at least curiosities, will not simply vanish because of Macron’s resounding victory. In 2017, for the first time in decades, France’s top two parties were not of the traditional left-wing, right-wing dichotomy. People in France–and, seemingly, around the globe–are craving change. If Macron is able to deliver tangible benefits to the people–from the factory worker in France’s hinterlands to the young, unemployed Parisian–then perhaps he can bring about a new stability that will defend against hard-liners like Le Pen and Mélenchon.

The first test of Macron’s effectiveness will come next month, during the two-round parliamentary elections, which follow the runoff format used in the presidential election. His En Marche! (Onward!) party, formed last year, will have to attract a sizable swath of parliamentary seats to carry out Macron’s centrist vision.

Conditions in France have clearly enabled populism to grow–on both ends of the political spectrum. Macron’s most important–and most challenging–task will be to appeal to those who voted him in (many who did so reluctantly, more against Le Pen than for Macron), and to create conditions and opportunities that snuff the growing populist flame. After Sunday’s vote, Macron appeared ready for the myriad challenges that face him and the republic he will now lead.

“I understand the divisions of our country that have led some to vote for extremists,” he said. “I understand the anger, the anxiety, the doubts that a great part among us have also expressed.” Later Sunday evening, Macron, standing in front of the Louvre, pledged to make good on his all-inclusive platform: “I will do everything I can in the coming five years to make sure you never have a reason to vote for extremism again,” he said.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Emmanuel Macron Won the French Election, but Populism is Not Dead appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Macron Crushes Le Pen in the French Presidential Election

Emmanuel Macron, a former investment banker who is for all intents and purposes a political newcomer in France, decisively defeated Marine Le Pen this weekend. Macron, whose ideology is best described as center-left won approximately 66 percent of the vote. Le Pen, who boasts a far-right ideology, garnered only 34 percent. There are some hurdles ahead–Macron’s new party, “En Marche!” is very young, and currently holds no seats in Parliament. Those elections will be held next month.

But Macron’s victory is seen as relatively good news for the EU. Le Pen had campaigned in part on a “Frexit”–France’s proposed version of “Brexit.” Macron, on the other hand, championed globalization, France’s position in the EU, and tolerance.

Macron vows to heal France’s divisions after victory over Le Pen https://t.co/dZeN02Uooh pic.twitter.com/gAz2pkV4dh

— Bloomberg (@business) May 8, 2017

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: May 8, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Will the Government Have to Shut Down?

Saturday will mark President Donald Trump’s 100th day in office, and reviews of his performance so far have not been that great. So naturally, Trump responded to media reports with an angry tweet, calling the first 100 days a “ridiculous standard.”

No matter how much I accomplish during the ridiculous standard of the first 100 days, & it has been a lot (including S.C.), media will kill!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 21, 2017

But to add to his headache, the 100-day milestone will coincide with the deadline to pass a funding bill. Right now it looks like the government could be headed for a shutdown, as the White House and Congress can’t seem to forge an agreement–Trump wants the bill to include funding for the debated border wall, while Democrats want to make sure contested Obamacare subsidy payments are funded. Senators come back from a two-week recess this evening; the House is back tomorrow. This means they only have three days to reach a compromise.

House Speaker Paul Ryan tells GOP members House will focus on avoiding a government shutdown, not health care vote https://t.co/8LqFqttDdP pic.twitter.com/YLHN2cg0ye

— CBS News (@CBSNews) April 24, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: April 24, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Shooting in Paris Could Impact Presidential Elections

Just a few days before the first round of voting in France’s election, a terror attack in Paris has the potential to deepen the nation’s already dramatic political divide. One man, identified as Karim Cheurfi, opened fire with a machine gun on the Champs-Elysee, one of Paris’ famous streets. Cheurfi killed one police officer and injured two others. He was then shot by law enforcement.

There may be a connection to Islamic State–a note supporting the terrorist organization was found near Cheurfi’s body, and the organization claimed responsibility for the attack. However, Islamic State also got salient details about the attack wrong, and it’s unclear why.

Belgian minister says gunman killed in Paris shooting was French national https://t.co/hctNtRoZGQ pic.twitter.com/QyRaHgVvOT

— ITV News (@itvnews) April 21, 2017

The first round of voting for the French presidential election will take place on Sunday, and today was slated to be the last day of campaigning. The attack could have an impact on the election–far-right candidate Marine Le Pen has called for the closure of all “Islamist” mosques in France, and one of her leading opponents, Emmanuel Macron has encouraged the French people to not “give in to fear.”

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: April 21, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

On April 23, French voters will choose two presidential candidates–the two highest vote getters–to advance to a run-off scheduled for May 7. Recent polls suggest a tight race. The projected victors of the first round–National Front’s Marine Le Pen and En Marche’s Emmanuel Macron–are both expected to net 22 percent of the April 23 vote. But after two successful debate performances, far-left candidate Jean-Luc Melenchon is hovering just behind the front-runners at 20 percent. Francois Fillon, the conservative candidate who is ensnared in a corruption scandal, is right behind at 19 percent of the first-round vote. Though 11 candidates are in the mix, one of these four is likely to be France’s next leader.

Marine Le Pen

Le Pen, the self-professed “candidate of the people” needs no introduction. A populist firebrand in the same vein as U.S. President Donald Trump, Le Pen heads the National Front Party on a platform steeped in anti-immigrant and anti-EU messaging. With a potent brew of Islamaphobia and nationalism, Le Pen has stunned political observers with her success so far, especially considering her family tree. Her father, the former National Front leader Jean-Marie Le Pen, was a blatant anti-Semite and racist. Under his leadership, the party was a fixture of France’s fringe, but never gained traction with a large chunk of voters. That is changing under Marine.

Francois Fillon

Fillon’s campaign has been marred by a corruption scandal that has overshadowed his policies. Fillon has been accused of paying his wife Penelope a hefty salary for a job that didn’t actually exist when he was a member of Parliament. His politics resemble a traditional conservative in the U.S.: he has pledged to cut taxes, open up the market, cut public spending, and increase the number of law enforcement officers.

Emmanuel Macron

A centrist and political novice–though he did serve as Minister of the Economy–Macron’s campaign has surged in recent months as French voters seek a candidate without Fillon’s establishment ties or Le Pen’s anti-EU nationalism. Macron is pro-EU. He has proposed a tax cut for corporations, and an influx of public spending. His social views are largely liberal, and he supports France’s secular society; he has said, however, that Muslim head scarves should not be banned at universities.

Jean-Luc Melenchon

In recent days, Melenchon, a 65-year-old admirer of Mao Zedong and Hugo Chavez, has been biting at the heels of Macron and Le Pen. His views are so far left that some worry he is an undercover communist. He would like to see a huge increase in public spending, he is skeptical of the EU, and he proposes France leave NATO. This is not his first rodeo; Melenchon ran in 2012, capturing 11 percent of the vote. But with his competitors stalling, and as France, like much of the rest of the West, seeks radical solutions, his star is on the rise.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Meet the Top Contenders in France’s Presidential Election appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Sessions Threatens Sanctuary Cities

Attorney General Jeff Sessions said yesterday that the White House will follow through on the executive order to withhold federal funding from so-called sanctuary cities, meaning cities where local law enforcement officials limit their cooperation with federal immigration enforcement authorities. Sessions made this announcement during the daily press briefing at the White House yesterday, which some saw as a sign that Trump wants to move on and divert attention from the failed health care bill. “They make our nation less safe by putting dangerous criminals back on our streets,” he said.

Democratic officials in states like California and New York forcefully spoke out against the AG’s comments, with California State Senator Kevin de Leon saying that he uses “unconstitutional threats and blackmail to prey on anxieties.” There are also worries that a crackdown on undocumented immigrants will make immigrants less likely to report crimes to police, for fear of retaliation. The total amount of money withheld could be more than $4.1 billion. In New York, a lot of that federal money is used to prevent terrorist attacks, so the order could make cities less secure.

#JeffSessions and @WhiteHouse continue #AlternativeFacts streak. Truth is sanctuary cities are less dangerous than nonsanctuary cities.

— Kevin de Leόn (@kdeleon) March 27, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: March 28, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

New Immigration Enforcement Rules Could Affect Millions

Yesterday, the government began issuing some new guidelines for the deportation of undocumented immigrants. The new rules, detailed via a pair of memos, are very aggressive and would focus on people who are charged with or suspected of crimes–previous guidelines prioritized those who have been convicted. These crimes can include minor offenses, like abuse of government benefits or engaging in “willful misrepresentation” in any official matter.

In the memos, Department of Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly also said that officials can deport any undocumented immigrants they believe could pose a threat to national security. He also called for the hiring of 15,000 new border patrol agents and for the building of the wall on the Mexican border to begin. It is unclear how this would be funded, but millions of people could potentially face deportation.

TRUMP DECLARES WAR ON THE ‘UNDOCUMENTED’: Trump’s new barbaric order can literally rip a family apart for jaywalking https://t.co/rIYXPjA20k

— Bill Madden (@activist360) February 21, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: February 22, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

The 2017 French Presidential Elections are quickly approaching and Marine Le Pen, leader of the far-right Front National (FN), leads in the polls. Like much of the western world, France has seen an upsurge in far-right, nationalistic sentiment. When comparing the 2017 race to French and European elections gone by, it is difficult to envision Le Pen’s path to the presidency. However, even if she is defeated, Le Pen’s far-right platform will remain a definitive political force in France for the foreseeable future.

The Situation in France

According to recent polls, Le Pen leads a handful of candidates with 26 percent favorability. Assuming polls hold steady, Marine Le Pen will win the first round of voting, scheduled for April 23, but will not accrue the majority required to win the election outright. Le Pen will have to compete in a run off election against the second most popular candidate.

This will not be the first time a Le Pen reaches the run off round of a presidential election. Jean-Marie Le Pen, Marine Le Pen’s father, came second in the first round of votes to earn one of two places in the run off round of the 2002 election. In the first round of voting, Jean-Marie Le Pen earned 16.9 percent of the vote compared to the center-right Jacques Chirac’s 19.9 percent. In the run off, Le Pen lost in a landslide. Le Pen was barely able to improve his 16.9 percent share, while Chirac’s share of the vote soared to 82.2 percent. Chirac was scandal ridden and highly unpopular. However, his left wing opponents backed him in the second round, calling on the French public to “vote for the crook, not the fascist.” Chirac won because he was seen by a Le Pen-fearing coalition as the lesser of two evils.

It is important to note that Jean-Marie Le Pen was an underdog, whereas his daughter is expected to win the first round. It is therefore unlikely that Marine Le Pen’s fate will perfectly map that of her father. However, Le Pen’s defeat to an anti-right wing coalition in the run off still seems imminent. If results in Austria’s 2016 presidential election are anything to go by, even the most popular of right wing politicians can struggle to overcome a two-round electoral system.

Lessons from the Rest of Europe

Like France, Austria’s elections make use of the two-round system. In the run-up to Austria’s first round of voting, Norbert Hofer, a far-right nationalist, held a sizable lead over his competitor. The Austrian nationalist ended up winning the first round by 13.8 percent. However, after an annulled run off election that was too close to call, Hofer lost the rerun by 7.6 percent. Hofer’s lead going into, and coming out of, the first round of voting was considerably greater than the lead Le Pen currently enjoys. Hofer’s first round victory was not particularly shocking. However, even with his sizable first round victory, the Austrian nationalist was unable to overcome the the anti-right wing coalition that formed in the second round.

Over the last few years, there have been a slew of analyses discrediting the viability of a right-wing populist movement. Such predictions were almost invariably disproven. While a Le Pen victory might be unlikely, it would be hardly come as a total surprise considering the state of contemporary western politics. Regardless of whether Le Pen overcomes a prospective anti-FN voter-bloc in the second round, her style of right wing nationalism will demand a response from whomever holds power. In France and elsewhere, far-right mobilizations have now entered the political mainstream.

Though Hofer was unable to win the largely ceremonial presidency, the centrist-controlled Austrian Parliament has already begun to pander to the far-right. In January, the parliament passed laws that would require asylum seekers undergo an “integration year” during which they would be expected to learn German. Austria has also become the latest European country to ban Muslim women from wearing full-face veils in public spaces–a entirely symbolic move considering only about 150 women in Austria wear such veils.

In the UK, the center-right Conservative Party has similarly worked to appease nationalists. Former Prime Minister David Cameron made the decision to call a referendum on EU membership that was seen by observers as a way of appeasing the far-right UK Independence Party and the more conservative members of his own party. Cameron expected the referendum to fail and hoped the public’s support would neutralize his far-right opponents. His plan backfired. The public voted to leave and Cameron resigned. In spite of the fact that a majority of parliamentary conservatives wished to remain in the EU, Theresa May, the new conservative leader, claims she is firmly committed to imposing the type of hardline immigration policies demanded by British nationalists.

The Netherlands has a general election scheduled for March 15 and the center-right People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) is scrambling to maintain control of the government. Geert Wilders’ far-right Party for Freedom (PVV) leads in the polls. Though Wilders’ PVV will not win enough seats to form a government outright, his party is currently projected to win the greatest number of seats. Though Mark Rutt, Prime Minister and Leader of the VVD, has ruled out the possibility that his party would form a coalition government with the far-right PVV, he has been pandering to an increasingly nationalistic public. Last month, he ordered immigrants to “act ‘normal’, or go away.”

What Does this Mean for Far-Right Movements?

Far-right mobilizations have gained, and will likely continue to gain, power, irrespective of whether or not they win elections. Marine Le Pen’s run for the presidency could very well fall short, but her surge in popularity over the past few years is indicative of France’s entrenched far-right movement. Assuming Le Pen loses, the party that achieves power will not have done so by inspiring a united support base or platform. The party in power will reflect a disjointed majority that will collectively disagree with Le Pen but might not agree on that much else. A fragmented leadership will only favor the far-right. As France’s far-right continues to voice their concerns, those in power will be forced to respond. This response will never disarm the far-right if those delivering it are politically impotent and ideologically incoherent.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Even if Marine Le Pen Loses, French Nationalism Will Still Win appeared first on Law Street.

Earlier in February, a French police officer was charged with raping a 22-year-old man with no criminal record during a violent arrest at the Aulnay-sous-Bois housing estate, located in the Parisian suburbs. Three other officers were charged with assault during the same arrest and all four officers, who denied the charges, have been suspended. However, the suspension has not satisfied the desire for justice in the banlieues, the suburbs of Paris that are often compared to the ghettos of American cities, areas of primarily low income housing that the far-right National Front have condemned as hotbeds of crime. The rape of the young man arrested in Aulnay-sous-Bois month has sparked mass protests across multiple suburbs.

Protesters clashed with police, and French academics are concerned that these protests may just be the precursor to riots on a greater scale, especially with the presidential elections just two months away. The victim, identified only as Theo, has asked the public to obey the law and not turn to violence, in a statement reminiscent of Rodney King’s “can’t we all get along” comments in 1992.

Conflict between the police and residents of the banlieues is always colored by the legacy of the 2005 riots, which began with the death of two teenagers who were electrocuted while hiding from the police in a power station. Young people took to the streets across multiple cities, burning buildings and cars, fighting police officers and even in ransacking the police station of Aulnay-sous-Bois. An estimated 3,000 people were arrested and a state of emergency was declared for several weeks. Thousands of extra police officers were called to duty and the images of burning neighborhoods were broadcast worldwide, painting the banlieues as almost apocalyptic.

The suburbs contain a diverse mix of incomes and ethnicities but in the past several decades they have become symbols of violence, unrest, and inequality. The Muslim and immigrant populations of the suburbs have frequently been vilified by politicians from across the country, who associate them with both acts of terrorism and petty crime. The revelation that Samy Amimour, one of the shooters in the November 2015 Paris attacks, came from the banlieues, added fuel to the fire.

This culture of fear combined with soaring unemployment rates has increased the isolation of the suburban population. Although the 2005 riots may have made the world sit up and take notice of the banlieues, they did not garner the community respect or sympathy from politicians or the greater French public. The riots only served to increase fear of the suburban population, to the point that any protest, even a justified one, is automatically considered to be a potential riot. The potential for a riot is by no means nonexistent but the fear of the banlieues has reached the point where even peaceful protest is feared. In an era where the far right is steaming ahead as a seemingly unstoppable force, the voices of the banlieues are getting pushed out of the traditional political sphere. When excluded from normal channels, populations have always relied on civil disobedience–but no one seems willing to frame the protests in the banlieues as such because of the pervasive legacy of 2005.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Will Riots Engulf the Parisian Suburbs Once Again? appeared first on Law Street.

Technology is not glitch-proof, as a businessman from Côte d’Azur in southern France learned last week. The man is suing San Francisco-based Uber for a whopping $48 million after the app let his wife know of his whereabouts, which allegedly caused his divorce.

The man says he used his wife’s iPhone to order a ride through Uber then signed out of the app. But what he didn’t know was that the app apparently kept sending notifications to the phone much later, even when he was logged out. Those notifications let his wife know when he was traveling and when he arrived at a destination.

It’s unclear whether or not she could also see his actual destination, but if he had told her that he was, say, working late or visiting his parents, she probably got suspicious if the app kept telling her he was riding in an Uber. According to French newspaper Le Figaro, it is also not known whether he actually did cheat, but he said that the notifications certainly led his wife to believe so. The couple is now divorced.

@Independent Well, he should have known better

— WeCanGetYouAnything (@WeCanGetYou) February 9, 2017

While it may be common sense to not use your partner’s phone if you’re up to no good, the man and his lawyer still blame Uber for everything. “My client was the victim of a bug in an application […] and the bug has caused him problems in his private life,” said his lawyer David-André Darmon. Uber declined to comment, as the company doesn’t comment on individual cases.

Le Figaro tested recreating the glitch, and confirmed that the app would keep sending notifications to a phone, even if the user had logged out. But it only worked with versions of the app that were older than the December 15 update and only on iPhones.

This is not the first time that Uber has been involved in a privacy issue. For example, at the end of last year, a court filing by the company’s former forensic investigator, Samuel “Ward” Spangenberg, revealed that the company’s lack of cyber security allowed employees to keep tabs on famous politicians, celebrities, and even exes.

Uber insisted that Spangenberg had old information and that the company’s strict policies prohibited employees from seeing such data. But then five former security professionals spoke up and largely confirmed Spangenberg’s account. Both cases raise concerns about Uber’s handle on its users’ private information.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post French Man Sues Uber For $48 Million, Claims the App Caused His Divorce appeared first on Law Street.

French presidential hopeful Marine Le Pen’s campaign officially began with a speech on Sunday, where she painted France in the same grim, dystopian hues that propelled President Donald Trump to victory in America. In front of thousands of supporters in Lyon, Le Pen delivered a screed against Islam, the European Union, and globalization. As the tides of populism, anti-globalization, and nationalistic fervor grip much of the Western world, France is the next liberal democracy that could retreat inward.

Le Pen, the leader of the far-right National Front party, opened her speech with a populist motto straight out of Trump’s playbook: “I’m against the Right of money, and the Left of money. I’m the candidate of the people!” she declared. As Le Pen spoke, a screen behind her read “In the Name of the People.” Images of the ideas Le Pen rails against flashed on the screen as well: criminal immigrants, jihadists, and, slightly out of place but equally as dangerous in Le Pen’s view–EU bureaucrats.

“After decades of cowardice and laissez-faire, our choice is a choice of civilization,” Le Pen, 48, said. “Will our children live in a country that is still French and democratic?” Le Pen praised Trump, called the EU a “failure,” and, citing the knife attack at the Louvre last Friday, said France is threatened by the “yoke of Islamic fundamentalism.” She promised to secure France’s borders, pull out of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO, and renegotiate French membership in the EU, possibly even holding a referendum on membership for a so-called “Frexit.”

Recent polls suggest Le Pen’s populist message is connecting, and will likely fuel her to the run-off round of France’s two-stage election process. The first round, a popular vote contest between a handful of candidates is set for April 23; the second, a run-off between the top two vote-getters, is two weeks later. While her nationalist, anti-elite ethos is certainly resonating, Le Pen’s greatest boon could be her opposition.

Seen until recently as the likely victor in the spring election, Francois Fillon is embroiled in a nepotism scandal that is threatening his candidacy, though he is staying in the race. But between the crumbling Fillon and the ascendant Le Pen is a third candidate who could win the day: Emmanuel Macron. The 39-year-old independent centrist is running on a starkly different platform than Le Pen–pro-EU, pro-globalization, pro-immigration–that could ultimately capture the majority of ballots.

Like Le Pen, Macron, a former banker and economics minister, is running as an outsider. In fact, his party, En Marche! (Let’s Go!) is less than one-year old. In his campaign kick-off speech on Saturday, Macron, in front of 10,000 supporters, spread his message beyond France’s borders, and reached out across the Atlantic: “I want all those who today embody innovation and excellence in the United States to hear what we say: from now on, from next May, you will have a new homeland – France,” he said.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post French Presidential Hopeful Marine Le Pen: “I’m the Candidate of the People!” appeared first on Law Street.

Earlier this week, President Donald Trump signed an order that will reinstate the Mexico City Policy, also known as the Global Gag Rule. It will prohibit international aid groups that receive U.S. funding from providing information about abortions. The fact that Trump, surrounded by other middle-aged white men, signed legislation concerning women’s bodies and reproductive health caused a lot of reactions worldwide. The photo in question looked like this:

As long as you live you’ll never see a photograph of 7 women signing legislation about what men can do with their reproductive organs pic.twitter.com/dXjfVjnRiX

— Martin Belam (@MartinBelam) January 23, 2017

A group of French feminists, calling themselves 52, reacted strongly to the news and created the perfect response. The group took a photo of Hillary Clinton signing papers and merged it with a 2009 photo of President Obama, surrounded by a group of WASPs, female fighters from World War II. They posted the result with the headline, “BREAKING NEWS: In the US ejaculation for non-procreative purposes is now forbidden.”

Imagine the outrage if a room for full of women signed a law legislating men’s sexual organs. Amazing work by French group 52 #marchforlife pic.twitter.com/PtLTVDqLea

— Athena (@AthenaJo_) January 27, 2017

A member of 52, who goes only by Sophie, said that the photo is clearly a joke, but that they made it “to ridicule something that boggles the mind: For centuries, it’s been men who dictate women’s bodies.” She said that men constantly tell women what to do and how to look. And Donald Trump just reversed what progress has been made in recent years by signing this legislation. “This picture of the president shows very well how men get to dictate the rights women have,” Sophie said. “It really wound us up.”

According to many studies, making abortion illegal doesn’t lead to fewer abortions. A ban will only lead to women seeking unsafe abortions that could kill them.

The global gag rule forces healthcare providers around the world to make impossible choices. pic.twitter.com/qPISbonqZW

— Planned Parenthood (@ppsworegon) January 27, 2017

The women founded the group in September and adopted their name because women make up 52 percent of France’s population. They held their first demonstration in France in January, aiming to achieve more empowerment for women. Their photo creation has become hugely popular in only a few days, but will any male politicians actually listen?

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Meet the French Feminists Who Created a Viral Parody Photo appeared first on Law Street.

The robbery of Kim Kardashian in Paris in October is one step closer to being resolved after police arrested 17 suspects in the beginning of the week following a close review of security footage. On Thursday, four of them were charged. Investigators believe the robbery to be an inside job. Most of the suspects, three of whom are women, are professional criminals who have previously committed armed robbery or drug and counterfeit trafficking. A 40-year-old limousine driver from a company the Kardashians frequently use when visiting Paris was arrested, but he was subsequently released. However, his younger brother remains in custody, and police believe he is the one who told the experienced robbers about Kardashian’s whereabouts.

One of the four people charged on Thursday was a 63-year-old man referred to by the name “Yunice A.,” who was charged with armed robbery in an organized gang, kidnapping, and criminal association. He will stay in custody for the time being. Available information about the other suspects include that one 62-year-old and one 27-year-old are facing the same charges as Yunice A. A 44-year-old is charged with concealment/fencing by an organized gang and association with criminals. Six more suspects are still being questioned.

Reportedly, police were able to identify some DNA from the tape used to tie Kardashian, and also from a piece of jewelry that one of the thieves dropped in the street as they fled on rented bicycles. The DNA combined with the surveillance footage led to the arrest of the thieves.

Charges have been filed against 4 suspects involved in the Kim Kardashian Paris robbery. https://t.co/JxKuN9QUou pic.twitter.com/a228pTmPiR

— Complex (@Complex) January 13, 2017

According to the Daily Mail, French authorities won’t let an eyewitness who could testify against the robbers into France. An Algerian concierge at the place where Kardashian was staying, known as Abdulrahman, saw the robbers’ faces. After the robbery, he left France to go home and recover from the stress of being held at gunpoint. Now, the French government won’t issue a visa to let him back in and testify, even though he previously was a legal resident in France. His lawyer Henri de Beauregard said:

I don’t know if this is incompetence or just a bad decision. He is the best witness, he saw the criminals much longer than Miss Kardashian. I hope the police have a lot of solid proof and evidence, because if they don’t, it will be seen as a crazy decision.

The robbery happened when Kardashian was in Paris to attend Fashion Week in the beginning of October. Five men disguised as police officers entered the mansion she was staying in, had the concierge take them to Kardashian’s room and stole jewelry worth $10 million after holding her at gunpoint and tying her up in the bathroom. Among the stolen items was her 20-carat engagement ring, worth $4 million.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Four Charged in Kim Kardashian Paris Robbery Case appeared first on Law Street.

Good morning everyone, here’s the first RantCrush of 2017! Hope you had a good New Year’s Eve and are prepared to tackle the new year. Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Arrests Have Been Made in Turkey Nightclub Attack

On the night of New Year’s Eve, a gunman dressed as Santa entered an internationally popular nightclub in Istanbul and started a shooting spree. Thirty-nine people died, and many more were injured. Yesterday, ISIS claimed responsibility for the attack. Twelve people have been arrested, but it’s still unclear whether the actual perpetrator is among them. The suspect has been identified as a man from Uzbekistan or Kyrgyzstan. Police are also investigating whether the unnamed suspect is connected to the same ISIS-affiliated group that carried out the attack on Istanbul’s Ataturk airport in June.

Turkey nightclub attack: Manhunt for gunman intensifies https://t.co/3SYL7yKMKm

— BBC News (World) (@BBCWorld) January 2, 2017

The attack is believed to be retaliation against Turkey for its involvement in the conflict in Syria, where Turkish forces have been fighting against ISIS. Approximately 25 of the victims were foreign. One American man was among the injured and survived by playing dead. This was a tragic way to end 2016 and ring in the new year, but Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is determined to fight terrorism. “As a nation, we will fight to the end against not just the armed attacks of terror groups and the forces behind them, but also against their economic, political, and social attacks,” he said in a statement.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: January 3, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

A new report released last week found that the U.S. ranked first again in global arms sales, selling $40 billion worth of weapons in 2015–about half of all arms agreements worldwide.

With $15 billion worth of signed contracts, France was the second most lucrative seller. The Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan division of the Library of Congress, revealed its findings to Congress last week.

According to the author of the review, Catherine Theohary, the report is meant to “assist Congress in its oversight role of assessing how the current nature of the international weapons trade might affect U.S. national interests.”

“Knowing the extent to which foreign government arms suppliers are transferring arms to individual nations or regions provides Congress with a context for evaluating policy questions it may confront,” wrote Theohary.

The U.S. and France both sold more weapons contracts than they did in 2014; the U.S. by about $4 billion  and France by more than $9 billion. Despite this, overall trade was down in 2015.

Total global arms trades dropped from $89 billion in 2014 to $79.9 billion in 2015. Russia was another big player on the production side, selling $11.1 billion worth of arms in 2015. 

So who is buying these weapons? Developing nations–Qatar, Iraq, Saudi Arabia–are the primary consumers of weapons pouring out of places like the U.S., Europe, and China.

Last year, developing nations purchased roughly $65 billion in arms worldwide, with Qatar ($17 billion), Egypt ($12 billion), and Saudi Arabia (over $8 billion) as the largest customers. One of America’s biggest buyers, Saudi Arabia, is embroiled in a civil war in Yemen. Critics say it is using U.S.-supplied munitions to indiscriminately bomb cities and towns.

“The larger valued arms transfer agreements with the United States in 2015 with developing nations included multiple agreements with Saudi Arabia to provide, among other things, munitions and associated accessories and Patriot PAC-3 missiles for over $7 billion,” the report found.

Earlier this month, the U.S. government blocked defense contractor Raytheon from selling 16,000 munitions to Saudi Arabia. The contract was valued at $350 million. White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said at the time that the Obama administration “long expressed some very significant concerns about the high rate of civilian casualties” inflicted by the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post U.S. Topped 2015 Arms Market With $40 Billion in Weapons Deals appeared first on Law Street.

On Thursday, Egyptian investigators announced that traces of explosives had been found on the remains of victims of the EgyptAir 804 crash, indicating that the plane was taken down deliberately. The evidence has been turned over to a public prosecutor who will start a criminal investigation.

The plane crash in May has long been a mystery. In June, a French ship detected a signal from the plane’s black box, in the Mediterranean Sea north of Egypt. In July, the sound recordings from the box indicated that the plane had gone down in a fire, but it was unclear what caused it. The plane was heading from Paris to Cairo when it went down, killing all 66 passengers on board.

News Alert: Traces of explosives found on EgyptAir victims. pic.twitter.com/lSnDM3yviR

— Fox News (@FoxNews) December 15, 2016

In October 2015, a Russian passenger flight crashed in Egypt, killing 224 people. The Islamic State later took responsibility for the crash, saying it had smuggled explosives on board. But since no terrorist group has claimed responsibility for the fate of flight 804, investigators believed that technical failure was to blame. Also, the cockpit voice recorder revealed that the pilots tried to extinguish a fire aboard and electronic evidence showed that smoke detectors went off in a bathroom. That indicated that there was a slow fire rather than an abrupt explosion.

The relationship between France and Egypt has been tense since the incident, as has the probe. Since the investigating team consists of officials from multiple countries, Egypt and France among others, the operation has been contentious at times. Egyptian officials have not wanted to share information with foreign investigators. And the French investigators don’t agree with the Egyptians’ recent findings, though they “can’t exclude that the plane was brought down intentionally,” an official said to the Wall Street Journal.

While France has wanted the victims’ remains to be returned to their families as soon as possible, Egypt has refused, citing the ongoing investigation. “France expects that the transmission of this report to the Egyptian prosecutor clears the way for the victims’ remains to be returned to their families as quickly as possible,” a spokesman for the French foreign minister said.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Explosives Found on Victims of EgyptAir Crash Prompt Criminal Probe appeared first on Law Street.

In Paris, officials are making use of excess heat from electrical appliances to heat up the city’s swimming pools. This environmentally friendly move is spearheaded by Jean-François Martins, deputy mayor in charge of sports. He wants to make swimming pools more sustainable. Paris is in the running to host the 2024 Olympic Games, and becoming more eco-friendly would help its chances both to win the bid, and to save money in the process.

Specifically, France is utilizing the excess heat from computer servers and sewage systems. Wastewater coming from 2.2 million Parisians’ sinks, toilets, washing machines, and dishwashers keep a temperature of about 55 to 68 degrees Fahrenheit. Some swimming pools are being built on top of the sewers, so that the water and waste run directly underneath the pool, where the heat gets captured through metal plates in the pipes. Then, a pump system transfers the warmth to the pool water. Next year, a start-up company is planning to install several hundred computer servers in the basement of a building with a swimming pool in the city’s 13th Arrondissement. The heat generated by the servers will be captured and transferred to a boiler that warms up the water as well as locker rooms. “We wish to reduce the environmental impact and ecological footprint of these facilities, while reducing chemical product use,” said Martins.

On the whole, Paris is making an effort to be progressive on climate issues. The city’s mayor, Anne Hidalgo, recently announced a ban on car traffic on a two-mile stretch along the Seine. The area will be transformed into a river promenade for pedestrians and cyclists. As a part of Hidalgo’s anti-pollution campaign “Paris Breathes,” the plan had the support of 55 percent of Parisians, even though some on the right opposed it. Paris is actually one of the most polluted cities in the European Union and air pollution is calculated to contribute to 2,500 deaths in the inner city every year.

Décision historique au #ConseildeParis : la fin d’une autoroute urbaine à Paris et la reconquête de la Seine. pic.twitter.com/Q0TQLzuHjA

— Anne Hidalgo (@Anne_Hidalgo) September 26, 2016

Monday, December 12 marks the one-year anniversary of the adoption of the Paris agreement, the first global deal aimed at battling climate change. Representatives from 200 nations met in Paris and agreed to cut greenhouse gas emissions. President-elect Donald Trump has previously said that he will withdraw from the Paris agreement when he takes office. On Sunday he said, “nobody really knows” why climate change happens, but claimed that he is “open-minded.” Both France’s President Francois Hollande and its former president, Nicolas Sarkozy, reacted to the statement. Sarkozy suggested a tariff on imported American products in case Trump backs out. Hollande said: “The United States, the most powerful economy in the world, the second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases, must respect the commitments that were made. It’s not simply their duty, it’s in their interest.”

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Paris is Reusing Energy From Wastewater to Heat Swimming Pools appeared first on Law Street.

Earlier this week, while Americans were busy analyzing our President-elect’s latest round of ill-advised tweets, France held a presidential primary, and the results could have some major impacts on the country’s 2017 presidential elections. On Sunday, candidate François Fillon beat out his two opponents, Alain Juppé and Nicolas Sarkozy, in the primary elections for France’s center-right Republican party. The victory was a major upset, considering that just last month, Fillon, France’s former prime minister, was trailing far behind Juppé and Sarkozy in the polls, making it unlikely that he would even be a competitor.

If you’re wondering why this news should matter to an American preparing for Trump’s presidency, it’s because France is poised to be the next nation to watch as Western countries are trending strongly toward populism and ultra-nationalism. These attitudes, which led to Brexit and our own President-elect Trump, have also been on the rise in France, a country which has traditionally been known for its left-wing politics.

If you’ve heard Marine Le Pen’s name being thrown around recently, it’s because she’s the leader of France’s far-right National Front, a party that has been known for certain extreme views against immigration and the European Union. Le Pen’s father, who was the party’s former head, was expelled from leadership after anti-Semitic comments.

After the Brexit decision, Le Pen wrote an op-ed for the New York Times calling the European Union a “prison of peoples” and declaring “The People’s Spring” inevitable. While the Brexit decision certainly gave Le Pen more ammunition to use in her cause, it is likely that Trump’s election will further increase the anti-establishment attitudes reflected by Le Pen and her supporters. She herself called Trump’s win a “sign of hope” and an indication that “people are taking their country back.”

Fillon’s victory on Sunday is significant because the Republican party was considered the greatest hope to prevent Le Pen’s victory in the presidential elections. While Fillon is a social conservative who has vowed to fight “Islamic totalitarianism,” he is still considered to be preferable to the left over Le Pen, whose plans to appeal to the working class and those fed up with the “establishment” and “elites” mirror the familiar rhetoric of the Trump campaign. It is unlikely that the left will have any representation of its own in next year’s race, as the low popularity of current Socialist President François Hollande indicates that the party will be unable to compete. Hollande announced today that he would not be seeking re-election, but polls indicate that any alternative candidate chosen by the Socialist Party will likely not be able to challenge Fillon and Le Pen.

If Le Pen is victorious in 2017’s elections, it could spell trouble for the future of the European Union and would likely be a discouraging outlook for liberal politics all over the globe. As the “Trump effect” sends ripples that will undoubtedly shake up the world order, the French election is one to watch.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Why You Should Care About the French Presidential Election appeared first on Law Street.

On October 25, France began dismantling the infamous migrant camp in the city of Calais nicknamed “the Jungle.” The camp was home to thousands of migrants and refugees and has been a source of division and animosity for the surrounding area. However, it is not just Calais that will be affected. In fact, the decision to shut down the camp actually speaks to larger trends both in France and in Europe at large. As the migrant crisis continues, many countries in Europe have had a hard time accommodating the influx of people.

Read on to find out more about what exactly is happening in Calais, where the refugees living there are headed next and how this all fits into the larger backdrop of national and continental politics.

Background

Migrants began settling in Calais, France way back in 1999. The camp survived several closure attempts, including one earlier this year. All the while the population grew, totaling more than 9,000 people, according to recent reports. Many people settled there on their way to the UK, as the camp is located near a tunnel between the two countries.

Read More: The “Great Wall of Calais”: The UK’s Controversial Plan to Stop Migrants

What’s Happening Now?

When authorities decided to tear down the camp, the next question was what exactly that meant for its inhabitants. Before the camp was cleared, there were thousands of people living there and at least 70 operating businesses. The plan is to move all these people and whatever they can carry with them to several sites across France. To expedite this process, the camp’s inhabitants were broken up into four groups: adult men, families, minors, and other vulnerable groups. During the removal process, conflicts and fires broke out as some were reluctant to uproot.

The video below depicts the deconstruction of the jungle:

Where are the Refugees Going?

Those leaving the camp were transported by bus to more than 450 individual reception centers across the country. These centers are generally abandoned hospitals, hotels, and army barracks located in many small towns. Once there, refugees are able to apply for asylum, but if their requests are denied they will face deportation. Not everyone is being forced out, unaccompanied children were allowed to stay in converted shipping containers as the rest of the camp was taken down. Days later, the remaining children were moved to various reception centers throughout the country. But NGOs have warned that since being resettled, many children are living in unsuitable conditions and are being forced to work.

Refugees there have already demonstrated a clear persistence to stay put if possible, with the goal to ultimately make it to England. England is currently set to accept some 200 children from the camp who have proven relatives in the UK, although it has promised not to accept any more.

Breaking down the Calais camp has also reignited the debate over immigration and refugee settlement. In England, politicians have been resistant to accept more refugees even as French President Hollande asks them to take on a greater share. British politicians, however, have been steadfast in their refusal, some have even been calling for dental exams to prove that children claiming refugee status are indeed children and not adults. And many small town residents in France have taken to the streets to protest the settlement of refugees in their communities.

Political Impact

At the forefront of the protests in France is the Front National, a nationalist political party led by Marine Le Pen. Le Pen’s party has spearheaded efforts to protest the settlement of immigrants in small towns. However, Le Pen’s party is certainly not alone. This development is emblematic of a trend across Europe where far-right parties, who oppose immigration as one of their central tenets, are on the rise.

Read more: Right-Wing Groups in Europe: A Rising Force?

This includes countries like Greece, Hungary, and Poland where dissatisfaction with the EU and the rising number of migrants has led to far-right parties securing large portions of parliament and in some cases the governing coalition. Some of these groups, such as the FIDESZ-KDNP in Hungary, have gone even further, espousing anti-Semitic views and seeking to criminalize homosexuality.

This rise is not solely confined to the poorer eastern portions of Europe, several nations, including France, have seen a growing backlash against immigration and immigrants. For example in Sweden, often held up as a golden standard of liberalism, the rise of the far-right Swedish Democrats, a party that strongly opposes immigration, led to the formation of a tenuous coalition government between the Social Democrats and the far-left Green Party.

In the upcoming elections in Germany, a far-right party may gain seats in parliament for the first time since World War II. Following mass reports of sexual assault last New Year’s Eve in Cologne, the Alternative for Germany Party, which has hard-line positions on immigration and strongly opposes Islam, grew in popularity. Perhaps the most significant example is in Austria, where the leader of a nationalist party has a very realistic chance of winning the presidency in the December runoff election. If successful, he would be the first far-right head of state elected in Europe since World War II. Migration also played a prominent role in the UK’s decision to leave the European Union earlier this year.

European Refugee crisis

Much of this reaction to the refugees in Calais is actually part of the larger reaction to a wave of immigrants flooding Europe in general. Europe has several demographic factors that make it an ideal place for immigrants, namely a shrinking native population and an increasing need for caretakers as its population ages. In addition, in terms of personal safety and economic prospects, many migrants see Europe as a significant improvement relative to their home countries.

In 2015, more than a million people arrived in Europe seeking asylum. Of those, about 476,000 have applied for asylum in Germany. While Germany received the most in total, on a per capita basis, Hungary, Sweden, and Austria have received more. Not coincidently, those three have seen a notable rise in far-right parties, all with platforms seeking to dramatically curtail immigration.

In Slovakia, Macedonia, and Hungary border walls have been erected to prevent migrants from getting through. France, Germany, Austria and Sweden, several of the most popular destinations, have instituted border checks. Norway has gone perhaps the furthest, though, by actually confiscating migrants’ valuables to pay for their care. Aside from these individual efforts, the EU as a whole has also worked on a deal with Turkey where, in exchange for billions in aid and reconsidering that country’s EU application, Turkey will prevent more migrants from entering Europe. The following video looks at the migration crisis in Europe:

Conclusion

What tearing down the Jungle actually means is unclear at this point. Particularly because it has been tried before, yet the camp has remained in place for almost 20 years under a range of politicians. What is more telling is the spirit behind the most recent decision to tear down the camp. While refugees are being offered the opportunity to be resettled, many migrants may not be granted asylum and will likely face deportation. Moreover, the situation in Europe has dramatically changed as far-right political parties are seeing their influence and popularity surge.

The refugee crisis has engulfed the continent. While many were first met with open arms, the mood has shifted and now many places are erecting barriers and denying entrance. This has coincided with a rise of far-right parties across the continent (as well as anti-immigrant and anti-refugee sentiment in the United States). Tearing down the Jungle, if it lasts this time, is symbolic as much as anything. However, the exact message being sent, whether hostile or not, remains unclear. The important thing to watch now is how those living the camp are resettled and how residents react to an influx of refugees.

Resources

CNN: Calais ‘Jungle’: Demolition of Massive Migrant Camp Begins

Law Street Media: The “Great Wall of Calais”: The UK’s Controversial Plan to Stop Migrants

NBC News: France Begins Evicting 6,000 Migrants From ‘Jungle’ Near Calais

Vox: France’s ‘Jungle’ Refugee Camp is Being Dismantled and Residents may have Nowhere to go

Reuters: ‘A Lot of Controversy’ Around Resettling Calais ‘Jungle’ Refugees

Law Street Media: Right-Wing Groups in Europe: A Rising Force?

The New York Times: How Far Is Europe Swinging to the Right?

BBC News: Migrant crisis: Migration to Europe Explained in Seven Charts

BBC News: How is the Migrant Crisis Dividing EU Countries

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post After Calais, Europe is Still Struggling to Deal with Refugees appeared first on Law Street.

President-elect Donald Trump’s victory last week has injected populist, anti-establishment figures in France with newfound confidence as they prepare for their presidential election next spring. With primary elections for top far-right candidates starting this Saturday, some have used Trump’s win as an example of what France can also achieve.

“Mr. Trump wants to defend American interests? Fine, I want to defend French interests and those of Europe. What Americans allow themselves, why should we refuse that for France?” former President Nicolas Sarkozy said at a rally in Nice on Tuesday.

Marine Le Pen, leader of the far-right National Front party, also expressed hope at a recent rally: “My election at the presidency has been called impossible for months now, it is up to the people to make it possible,” she said.

The West, with Brexit and the Trump movement as concrete examples, is in the midst of of an anti-immigration, anti-establishment swing. Mass migration and globalization are stirring populist forces, and new political movements are arising to ride their coattails. But other candidates think the movement Trump helped stoke will not reach France.

“I don’t want to pit one part of France against another, the elites against the people … It’s a dangerous political game,” Alain Juppe, a center-right candidate and ex-prime minister said at a Paris rally on Monday. Polls have Juppe ahead of Sarkozy in their primary face-off which begins this Saturday. Juppe is the mayor of Bordeaux.

France’s election will have two rounds: one in April and another in May, when the two two candidates to emerge from the first round will go head-to-head. France’s main pollsters predict Le Pen, a 48-year-old former lawyer, will make it to the second round, but lose in a landslide to whoever the center-right candidate will be, even with the boost Trump’s win provided her.

Whether she wins or not, Le Pen’s message certainly shares common themes with other right-wing parties in Europe. In an interview with CNN on Tuesday, Le Pen shared her vision for the “comeback of France” her leadership would lead to:

“The nations are not triggering the war; it is ultra-liberalism, the disappearance of borders, the great migration of people … according to the ambitions of the multinationals that creates war. There have never been as many conflicts as there are today,” she said.

Le Pen has also called the European Union a “quasi-totalitarian political system,” promising a referendum on France’s membership–a “Frexit”–should she win the presidency. France’s current President Francois Hollande is deeply unpopular, but has not explicitly said he won’t run for another term.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Will Trump’s Win Affect France’s Upcoming Election? appeared first on Law Street.

In the Calais refugee camp known as “the Jungle,” 1,500 unaccompanied kids and teenagers are left roaming around on their own. As France and the UK are trying to decide who should do what, the kids are waiting impatiently. Without any adults around to supervise things or provide mental support and a sense of normalcy, many kids are confused, depressed, and frustrated. Boredom often leads to fights and there is often not enough food. The majority of the refugees are boys between 10 and 17 years old, who sleep in cold containers and don’t have drinking water except for when volunteers come to hand out bottles. But there are also around 30 unaccompanied girls, most under 15 but one as young as 12.

No one is allowed into these containers except for security police. But some volunteers work around the clock to provide the kids food–only one hot meal per day–and bottled water. Authorities have only handed out 20 passes in total for volunteers to enter the area, which is not enough considering the amount of help that is needed. Many volunteers hand the kids food through the fence instead.

Whilst the UK and France argue Children are thrown to the Wolves #Calais Write to your MP & Amber Rudd #refugeecommunitykitchen #OLSX pic.twitter.com/QMEPxn7t9I

— Refugee C Kitchen (@RefugeeCKitchen) October 30, 2016

“They’ve left them with no support whatsoever. They’ve just left these 1,500 kids since Friday and gone,” said volunteer Steve Bedlam. He also said the taps have been turned off and the only running water is in the toilets. “This has been confirmed by several of the kids. When we bring water in a truck it goes crazy. People are grabbing at it, like they want to get six bottles.”

Concerned about the children’s safety, the volunteers are now trying to keep some adults around outside of the camp all throughout the night. Lately they have been handing out food from 7 AM to 11 PM, and from the time they leave no grown ups have been present in the camp except for police. Bedlam said:

It’s dangerous. You’ve just literally got 1,500 kids going in and out, wandering around the old burnt out jungle as much as they want. There’s no control, no one stopping them leaving. Thank god for volunteers or it would literally be 1,500 kids sitting in a bombsite.

As winter gets closer and it gets cold, kids are asking the volunteers for shoes and blankets and when they can see their parents, who have often already arrived at their end destination. But there seems to be no information from authorities and no one really knows what is going on. If the kids are heading to other places in France or to the UK remains to be seen and many believe it is just a political problem that no one wants to take responsibility for. “There’s apparently some political system going on, but we have no idea what it is,” said Cecelia Bittner from volunteer organization Calais Kitchens.

#France has failed children in #Calais – @hrw‘s @MichaelBochenek https://t.co/k2P24782Q3 pic.twitter.com/mvcgYBFX1E

— Elaine Pearson (@PearsonElaine) October 31, 2016

France’s president Francois Hollande reportedly phoned Britain’s Prime Minister Theresa May on Sunday to ask her to accept more refugee children, which she declined, saying that the UK already had accepted a “considerable number of unaccompanied minors.” The main problem and the most upsetting issue for the volunteers present in Calais is that both the French and British governments have just left these kids unaccompanied in a refugee camp without food and water, locked up and guarded by security police.

“The French government are basically leaving these kids and going ‘we’ve done our bit, come on do your bit’” said Bedlam. “But they’re messing with kids’ lives. It’s not fair. They’re pawns in a political game.”

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 1,500 Refugee Children Left on Their Own in the Calais “Jungle” appeared first on Law Street.

Politicians threatening to build extravagant walls as a means to prevent refugees from entering the country are not exclusive to the likes of Donald Trump in the United States. Last week British Immigration Minister Robert Goodwill announced that the United Kingdom and France plan to erect an “anti intrusion” barrier in the northern French city of Calais. Projected to span half a mile, stand more than 13 feet tall, and cost over $2.6 million, the purported “Great Wall of Calais” will be funded by the British government to hinder would-be immigrants from illegally crossing the English Channel. The development signifies only a fraction of a $22.7 million collaborative Anglo-Franco project designed to heighten security measures between the two nations.

With construction supposedly beginning later this month, read on to learn about the complicated humanitarian crisis currently unfolding in one of Europe’s largest refugee settlements.

Welcome to the Jungle

On the outskirts of Calais lays a conglomeration of makeshift homes tokened as “The Jungle” due to the dense and oftentimes unpredictable living arrangements. While the French government proclaims the population of this community hovers around 7,000, local activists say the actual number exceeds well over 9,000 and growing daily –with roughly 70 newcomers arriving every day.

Image Courtesy of [malachybrowne via Flickr]

Migrants began to move into the area in 1999 with the formation of the original Sangatte refugee camp. Over the years the spot has emerged as a controversial haven for citizens fleeing Northern Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia. Despite its closure in 2001 and 2002 by former French president Nicolas Sarkozy, migrants intending to someday relocate to England have resiliently (and perhaps strategically) stayed put. Largely attributed to Calais’ short distance from Dover, England (less than 30 miles away), the settlement predominantly attracts prospective asylum seekers adamant about making the United Kingdom their new home.

Together these men, women, and children live in highly challenging living conditions with minimal resources, not to mention face the constant threat of expulsion and ridicule from the local populace. Ironically enough, the decision to create a buffer between England and France comes after the British government was approached to accept 400 parentless refugee children. Specifically, some children living within the tent city were previously separated from their families, some of whom now reside in England.

In an attempt to solicit a stronger humanitarian response from the United Kingdom, the Archbishop of Canterbury has proven to be one of the most vocal advocates for reuniting these family units, urging Parliament to expedite the process more efficiently. Today the encampment is experiencing dire food shortages and children prone to malnutrition. Currently the Refugee Community Kitchen says that there isn’t enough donated food remaining to feed all of the residents, meaning some people are being turned away.

How Could England Justify a Wall?

Many migrants in Calais are hesitant to formally register as refugees in France due to their intentions to someday relocate to England–leaving them in “legal limbo” according to a Washington Post article. Since the growing settlement is situated directly across from a major highway, historically it has been plausible for refugees to easily reach the point of crossing over to England. Because of The Jungle’s close proximity to the industrial road leading directly to the channel, some refugees clandestinely hide on trucks and ferries to reach their desired destination.

Regardless of the safety hazards presented, this past July it was estimated that up to 2,000 migrants try to illegally cross the English Channel every night. More specific numbers show that prospective migrants try to sneak into the United Kingdom every six seconds with more than 84,000 border arrests made last year–the majority hailing from Calais. In 2015 the migrant crisis made headlines when approximately 235 illegal migrants bombarded a ferry en route to England.

“People are still getting through,” said Goodwill, who spearheaded the verdict. “We have done the fences. Now we are doing the wall.” 

Logistically speaking, giant slabs of concrete will replace the trajectory of barbed wire already placed along the highway leading to the ferry terminal and underground tunnel to completely cut access. Goodwill rationalized his decision to assemble a wall by claiming it would amplify security in order to dissuade refugees from illegally traveling on England-bound lorries. 

The French Perspective

Certain French officials would put an end to the sprawling camp in a heartbeat. Back in February the French government vowed to dismantle a portion of the encampment that serves as a home for more than 1,000 people. Such animosity intensified recently after 100 migrants broke down a fence to reach the Eurotunnel terminal.

Based on a New York Times report, the prefect for Calais’ administrative department, Fabienne Buccio, is trying to incentivize migrants to abandon such squalor and move into state-run shelters or other immigration centers situated across France.

“I think that it is time to tell the migrants in Calais, who are still living in conditions that are not dignified and that are not desirable: ‘We really have a solution for you, there are no more reasons for you to stay in these conditions,’ ” said Buccio.

Earlier this summer French truck drivers and residents of Calais protested outside the outpost. A fleet of approximately 40 trucks and a number of farming vehicles marched on the highway leading to the waterway. According to the demonstrators, migrants are resorting to hazardous tactics in their pursuit to cross the English Channel. An Al Jazeera video report featured below also discusses how some migrants slashed truck tires to enter large vehicles and hide within the cargo. The CEO of the Calais port, Jean-Marc Puissesseau, expanded upon this trend saying that refugees place tree trucks, branches, and gas cylinders along the road to halt traffic and sneak into vehicles.

“This wall is going to prevent migrants from invading the highway every night,” said Puissesseau. “We can no longer continue to put up with these repeated assaults.”

Protesters also demanded that the French government compensate local businesses for the gradual loss of tourism revenue throughout the region. Locals say that the presence of refugees tarnished the city’s reputation.

Opposition to the Decree

Numerous civil society groups in both England and France have condemned their countries for their unwillingness to provide aid to these individuals forced to flee their homes out of fear of death or persecution. One grassroots organization in England called Worldwide Tribe, for example, aims to fight prejudice against refugees in Calais with compassion.

“We’re not politicians, we don’t pretend to have all the answers, and we’re not charity workers,” said Jasmine O’Hara, a member of the Worldwide Tribe in Calais, in 2015 to The Guardian “We’re just normal people from Kent who want to help our fellow human beings with their basic needs.”

The current circumstances are also soliciting a strong response from certain members of the French Green Party, such as Jean Lambert.

“The decision to build a wall in Calais is the latest wrong move in what is the ongoing scandal of the handling of the plight of refugees in northern France,” said Lambert, who serves as a migration spokeswoman for the British Green Party. “The UK government must get its act together.”

Surprisingly enough, the mayor of Calais, Natacha Bouchart, is dubious of the upcoming project as well. From her perspective, constructing a wall would be frivolous when the city government is determined to shut down the campsite as soon as possible and supposedly assist refugees in finding alternative housing solutions. Even British truck drivers within the UK’s Road Haulage Association disapprove of the recent announcement, calling it a “poor use of taxpayer money.” Some say that funneling funds into better security precautions along the roads (specifically) would be a better investment.

Conclusion

Doctors Without Borders declared that 35 migrants from The Jungle have died while attempting to cross the English Channel. According to the non-profit organization, this proclaimed wall is likely to increase the death toll in the coming months as refugees will try to find alternative methods in reaching England–endangering their lives more so in the process.

“Further investment from the UK in security measures in the area around Calais, prioritizing deterrence over a safe and humane management of the situation, will only further the suffering of those people who remain in deplorable conditions in squalid camps,” said Executive Director of Doctors Without Borders for the British branch, Vickie Hawkins. “So far deterrence measures have not proven that they fulfill their objective, rather they have created a policy-made humanitarian crisis in northern France.”

Resources

The Local: Everything You Need to Know About the Calais Wall

Al Jazeera: UK Slate Over Planned Anti-Refugee Wall in Calais

CNN: UK to Build ‘Big New Wall’ in Calais to Stop Migrants

Redice.TV: Massive Concrete Wall Planned for Calais to Keep Migrants Out of Britain

The Washington Post: Britain and France to Construct ‘Great Wall of Calais’ to Keep Migrants From Port

The New York Times: France to Dismantle Part of Migrant Camp Near Calais

Sputnik News: Building Wall at French Calais Could Cause Humanitarian Crisis in Refugee Camp

The Huffington Post: ‘Great Wall of Calais’ Refugee Migrant Barrier to be Build in France, Robert Goodwill Confirms

BBC News: Why is There a Crisis in Calais?

Reuters: Food Shortages Hit Calais ‘Jungle’ Camp as UK urged to Accept 400 Children

The Independent: Britain to Build 13ft High Wall in Calais to Block Refugees From Entering the UK

Editor’s Note: The post has been edited to reflect that the French government has vowed to dismantle only a portion of the Calais encampment, rather than all of it.

Jacob Atkins

Jacob Atkins is a freelance blogger and contributor for Law Street Media. After studying print journalism and international relations at American University, Jacob now resides in Madrid where he is teaching English, pursuing multimedia reporting projects and covering global news. Contact Jacob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

http://jacobson.pressfolios.com/

The post The “Great Wall of Calais”: The UK’s Controversial Plan to Stop Migrants appeared first on Law Street.

If you missed Law Street’s top headlines last week, here’s what you need to know: France’s burkini ban is getting out of control, space law is still cool, and Big Pharma took a hit after EpiPen makers were called out for the allergy med’s outrageous price hike. ICYMI–check out the top stories below!

1. Burkini Ban: Enforcement Starts in Nice and Cannes

Armed police officers forced a Muslim woman to take off her burkini at the beach in Nice, France. In Cannes, another woman was fined for wearing a headscarf and leggings. These are some of the first known examples of enforcement of  a controversial ban on certain beachwear since the ban was implemented in several French towns earlier this month. Read the full article here.

2. Looking to Launch a Career in Space Law? Nebraska Law is Here to Help

Space law. It’s a concept that, to some of us, sounds ripped out of the movie “Xenon, Girl of the 21st Century,” “Interstellar,” or possibly “Gravity.” But I want you to think back to the last time you used your smartphone as a GPS. How about the last time you flew on a plane? Or the last time you checked the weather for your area. Or the last time you streamed an episode of your favorite Netflix original show. All of those activities are in some way governed by space law, and how it intersects with the distinct but related fields of cyber and telecommunications law. But what is space law, why does it matter, and how does it affect the education of law school students right now? Read the full article here.

3. EpiPen CEO Heather Bresch is Giving Us Major Martin Shkreli Vibes

Remember Martin Shkreli? He was the hedge fund manager who bought a life-saving AIDS drug and then raised its price overnight by more than 5,500 percent. Yeah, that dude. Well he’s not the only one giving Big Pharma a bad name. Mylan CEO Heather Bresch is the newest pharmaceutical exec to face similar criticism after she struggled to justify hiking the price of the EpiPen by more than 400 percent in the past decade. Read the full article here.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Amid uproar over France’s enforcement of the burkini ban, the top court of France has overturned the ban in the town of Villeneuve-Loubet, the Associated Press reports. The decision, issued by the country’s Council of State, is likely to set a precedent for overturning the ban in all other ordinances in which it currently is enforced.

This action comes a few days after photos were released that showed police forcing a woman lying on a beach in a burkini to remove some of her clothing, deeming her outfit not beach-appropriate. As a result, France has been facing heat for what many believe is simply another way of exerting control over women’s bodies.

While the burkini seems to only be a slight variation on the wetsuit, it has its proponents in uproar over issues such as “hygiene” and “morality.”

The #BurkiniBan – ‘C’est ridicule!’ © Amy Clancy (@AmyClancyUK) pic.twitter.com/yohgEJ6G2J

— Amy Clancy (@AmyClancyUK) August 24, 2016

Men: Stop telling women what to wear https://t.co/eHdQ7kPq4y #BurkiniBan pic.twitter.com/zG5l6wrbW5

— Ann Telnaes (@AnnTelnaes) August 25, 2016

However, it is likely that this city’s overturned ban will be met with a lot of resistance in the country, where the ban has also received a lot of support in the name of secularism. Former French president (and current presidential candidate) Nicolas Sarkozy, for example, has called the burkini a “provocation” that supports radical Islam. Additionally, right-wing leader Marine Le Pen vowed that the battle would continue, and declared his support for a banning of headscarves in all public places.

The conservative mayor of the town of Villeneuve-Loubet, Lionnel Luca, isn’t happy with the court’s decision, believing that it “can only heighten passions and tensions, with the risk of trouble we wanted to avoid.”

The burkini ban is a continuation of recent French policies to crack down on overt religious expression, policies which have seemed to unevenly target Muslims. In 2004, a French policy banning religious symbols in public schools prevented students from being able to wear items such as headscarves. In 2011, a policy to prevent face coverings in public made it forbidden for women to wear burqas without facing consequences. This most recent ban seems to be a continuation of this fixation on Muslim women’s wardrobe and what it allegedly represents.

While male leaders in France continue to fight over women’s clothing choices, the repercussions of the French court’s decision will undoubtedly continue the discussions on secularism, religious freedom, and Islam within France and other European countries.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Court Overturns Burkini Ban in French Town appeared first on Law Street.

Armed police officers forced a Muslim woman to take off her burkini at the beach in Nice, France. In Cannes, another woman was fined for wearing a headscarf and leggings. These are some of the first known examples of enforcement of  a controversial ban on certain beachwear since the ban was implemented in several French towns earlier this month.

Cannes was the first town to impose the ban, which emerged after recent terrorist attacks in France. According to the rule, you cannot visit the beaches in Cannes if you are “wearing improper clothes that are not respectful of good morals and secularism.” The prohibition is widely seen as a restriction of the freedom of religion and expression that is supposed to exist in France.

According to the Telegraph, at least four armed officers approached the burkini-wearing woman on the beach in Nice and didn’t leave until she took her burkini off.

Woman forced to remove burkini on Nice beach while another given fine in Cannes https://t.co/UhI7rpeJDPpic.twitter.com/2nTpXOfn9Q

— The Telegraph (@Telegraph) August 24, 2016

The woman who was fined in Nice said she was wearing a tunic with leggings and a headscarf, sitting on the beach in Cannes with her family with no intention of going swimming. Another beach visitor who witnessed the incident, Mathilde Cousin, said, “The saddest thing was that people were shouting ‘go home,’ some were applauding the police. Her daughter was crying.”

The town of Villeneuve-Loubet was one of the first of some 15 French towns to follow the example set in Cannes, imposing similar beach rules. On Monday, a lower court ruled that the ban is “necessary, appropriate, and proportionate” to uphold public order after recent terrorist attacks. The ruling went on to say that the burkini was “liable to offend the religious convictions or [religious] non-convictions of other users of the beach” as well as “be felt as a defiance or a provocation exacerbating tensions felt by” the community.

The French NGO Human Rights League appealed the decision, saying the ban is a “serious and illegal attack on numerous fundamental rights,” notably freedom of religion.

The controversial ban will come before the highest administrative court in France on Thursday. Meanwhile, the mayor of Villeneuve-Loubet, Lionnel Luca, had another explanation for why he wanted the rule in place. He told Sky News:

I was informed that there was a couple on one of our beaches where the wife was swimming fully dressed… I considered that unacceptable for hygienic reasons and that in general it was unwelcome.

The woman he saw was swimming in the ocean, not a swimming pool. Luca did also not specify whose hygiene he was concerned about.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Burkini Ban: Enforcement Starts in Nice and Cannes appeared first on Law Street.

The Mayor of Cannes, in Southern France, has banned the “burkini” from its beaches. He claims it is a threat to public order and a symbol of radical Islam.

A “burkini” is simply a garment that some Muslim women wear to the beach; it covers a wearer’s whole body and hair, but not her face. This ban has been met with criticism from anti-Islamophobia groups and citizens alike, who say that Mayor David Lisnard is simply trying to gain political points in the aftermath of recent terror attacks that have kept citizens on high alert.

#Cannes bans ‘burkini’ from French Riviera beaches https://t.co/LwkVJbsw7m pic.twitter.com/YAjrW53RbT

— dwnews (@dwnews) August 12, 2016

The idea that a piece of women’s clothing could be a sign of radical Islamism and terrorism has also caused protests on social media.

The ban on burkinis also scream of Islamophobia. While other religous symbols can still be displayed, a burkini ban =”radical islam”?

— Saddiq (@SyedSaddiq) August 12, 2016

According to the BBC, Lisnard confirmed to local media that even though the Muslim religious clothing will be banned on the beaches, the Jewish kippah and the Christian cross will still be permitted. The new rule says:

Access to beaches and for swimming is banned to any person wearing improper clothes that are not respectful of good morals and secularism.

Beachwear which ostentatiously displays religious affiliation, when France and places of worship are currently the target of terrorist attacks, is liable to create risks of disrupting public order.

With the new rule, women wearing a burkini will first be asked to change into some other kind of swimwear or leave the beach. If they don’t, they will be subject to a fine of about $42.

The organization Collective Against Islamophobia in France (CCIF) has said it objects to the decision, saying in a statement on its website that no part of French law prohibits free expression of religion in public.

France has been the target of several terror attacks in the past few years; a truck attack in Nice in July was the most recent incident. CCIF pointed out in its statement that Muslims made up a third of the 85 victims at the truck attack, saying that terrorism affects everyone regardless of religion.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Muslim Women Can No Longer Wear Burkinis to the Beach in Cannes appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

France Has a Burkini Problem

Speedwater Park in Marseille, France is being booked for a burkini-only event. It is a women-only gathering and only guests wearing a full body swimming garment will be allowed in. Of course, this has caused crazy outrage all over secular France, including from its top political officials. Stephane Ravier, a mayor of two other Marseille districts with the far-right Front National party, said this:

This Islamist day demonstrates that, outside of the comforting words of Muslim authorities, a certain number of Muslims are deciding among themselves to break away from our Republican model and put themselves outside our society.

The event organizers noted that the event was open to all women, including non-Muslims, who agreed to wear bathing suits that covered their bodies from chest to knees. Seems easy enough!

BBCWorld : ‘Burkini-only day’ at waterpark in France criticised https://t.co/XFttjrSIzl (via Twitter … pic.twitter.com/dxLdt6yZ7o

— jahir (@jahirvai2) August 4, 2016

France has been known to be particularly harsh against Islamic traditions, and some may say that its possibly racist. But it’s only fair that the small community of  citizens be allowed to enjoy this summer pastime with their non-Muslim neighbors. This is not France “slipping under the submission of Islam,” this is France’s motto: Freedom, Equality and Brotherhood.

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: August 5, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

#OhioAgainstHate Trends Ahead of the Republican Convention

In response to the RNC and the seemingly imminent nomination of Donald Trump, Ohioan volunteers canvassed their neighborhoods to spread a simple message: #OhioAgainstHate. 

Former Ohio State Sen. @ninaturner explains why #OhioAgainstHate is important to Ohioans. #UnitedAgainstHatepic.twitter.com/FazhRjHBxp

— MoveOn.org (@MoveOn) July 16, 2016

The movement also comes in anticipation of violence and protests at the convention, and the hope that Ohioans and RNC visitors will remain peaceful.

Cleveland welcomes all guests to the #ClevelandRNC but please…respect our city, our people, our officers, our HOME. #OhioAgainstHate

— Kate Mervine (@gil8282) July 16, 2016

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: July 18, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Thursday night in Nice, France, 84 people went to go celebrate Bastille Day and watch the fireworks, but their night ended in tragic death, as the country experienced its third major terror attack in 19 months. More than 200 others were injured–some critically–as a result of Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel, 31, the man who is believed to be responsible for driving a large commercial truck over a mile-long stretch along a crowded boulevard, brutally mowing down those in his path.

French officers finally shot and killed Bouhlel outside the Hyatt hotel and casino. Prime Minister Manuel Valls addressed the attack Friday morning after a cabinet meeting. “We will not give in to the terrorist threat. The times have changed, and France is going to have to live with terrorism.”

President François Hollande has extended France’s state of emergency for another three months. Originally, the state of emergency was supposed to be over at the end of the month in the wake of the attacks in and around Paris Nov. 13. He has also called for three days of mourning beginning Saturday, where the flags will fly at half staff. Hollande said he in no way doubts that the attack had ties to terror.

“We have an enemy who is going to continue to strike all the people, all the countries who have freedom as a fundamental value,” Hollande said. “France is afflicted, but she is strong, and she will always be stronger than the fanatics who want to strike her.”

INTERPOL Incident Response Team being deployed to #Nice to provide disaster victim identification assistance

— INTERPOL (@INTERPOL_HQ) July 15, 2016

Heroic motorcyclist loses life in attempt to stop #NiceAttack https://t.co/42bPpUgBSj pic.twitter.com/m7GQvrnMjs

— RT (@RT_com) July 15, 2016

Another horrific attack, this time in Nice, France. Many dead and injured. When will we learn? It is only getting worse.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 14, 2016

Inez Nicholson

Inez is an editorial intern at Law Street from Raleigh, NC. She will be a junior at North Carolina State University and is studying political science and communication media. When she’s not in the newsroom, you can find her in the weight room. Contact Inez at INicholson@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Nice Attack: 84 Dead From Deadly Truck Rampage appeared first on Law Street.

Thousands of workers have mobilized in France this summer to protest a new law that would make it easier for the French government to hire and fire workers. The bill, which would also relax the limit on working hours, went through parliament without a vote, sparking large scale protests.

Union members are rallying behind Philippe Martinez, leader of the General Confederation of Labor, one of France’s most prominent labor unions. Conflicts between the workers, anti-labor groups and the police have become increasingly heated. Tear gas has been used on protesters as trucks block roadways, shutting down everyday traffic in the city. Protesters and police officers have been injured. At this point, large-scale violence has yet to spread across the entire city, but it has made a visual impact on some of Paris’ most famous venues, including the Eiffel Tower, which was shut down after workers walked out on strike. The protests may strike a more peaceful note in the coming days, but with railway workers and other labor unions flooding into the city in a show of solidarity, Paris is becoming a powder keg. Images of police detaining protesters with force have gone around the world, painting the French protests as a violent threat to public order.

French labor unrest comes on the heels of the Verizon strike in the U.S., during which strikers effectively pressured Verizon leadership into adding jobs and raising pay after CWA union members spent 45 days on picket lines. The Verizon protest did not have the same violent clashes with police that have occurred in the French labor protests, but the issues at the heart of their actions are similar. Class ideology, and the battle between those eking out a living as middle wage employees versus those securely earning at the top of the food chain, is central to both conflicts.

The Verizon strike, one of the longest and most efficient in recent memory (if Verizon does honor its agreement with the CWA in the future), created inconvenience, inefficiency, and a drop in stock value for Verizon but it never rocked the boat in the same way that the Paris protests have. Perhaps because the Paris protesters have come closer to violence, teetering on the edge with fistfights and riot police, they have been dramatized as more impressive or pressing than the Verizon strike.

However, only time will tell whether the Paris workers will elicit the desired response by organizing rowdier, more dramatic protests. The Verizon protests may not have been as visually poignant but they did achieve the desired result within a relatively narrow time frame and forced the leadership of the company to truly feel the power of their organized labor force.  Paris’ protests are almost cinematic–smoke, screaming, thousands pouring into the streets–but it is important to distinguish the visuals of the protest from the reality on the ground. The Verizon protest was working towards a similar goal, but managed to do so without violent clashes–so perhaps Philippe Martinez should get in touch with the CWA and ask for pointers?

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Summer of Strikes: Union Protests in the US and France appeared first on Law Street.

Imagine peace talks where the two parties vying for compromise are absent at the negotiating table. This is the reality in the long, fraught history of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. On Friday, France hosted diplomats from all over the world–including U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon–to discuss a two state solution for Israel and Palestine, an elusive bargain that all sides say cannot materialize unless talks directly involve those two parties.

For decades, the U.S. has been the lead mediator for peace, and though France’s decision to host talks doesn’t mean it will take over that mantle, it is seen by the Palestinians as a step toward having a more neutral government at the forefront of the talks. The PLO–Palestinian’s governing body–views America’s close ties with Israel as a potentially problematic factor in hosting neutral peace discussions.

“We must act, urgently,” said French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault, “to preserve the two-state solution, revive it before it is too late.”

The French effort comes at a time of deepening mistrust between Israelis and Palestinians, as months of stabbings and violence have cast a pall over an already darkening mood. Israeli settlements in the West Bank–which, along with the Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem would likely make up a future Palestinian state–are an unmovable obstacle for peace.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejected Friday’s discussions, saying peace can only happen with direct talks between Israeli and Palestinian leaders. Mahmoud Abbas, the President of the PLO, while not present in Paris, embraced the French initiative, if only because it represented a step in shifting the mediating role from the Americans to a more neutral partner in France.

The most recent brush with peace came in 2012, when a majority of the U.N. General Assembly recognized Palestine as a state. Israel did not, so a two-state reality remained out of reach. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry tirelessly worked at achieving peace in 2014 but no deal was reached. On the latest stab at peace by the French, Kerry said: “We’re just starting, let’s get into the conversations.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Baby Steps: France Initiates New Round of Israel-Palestine Peace Talks appeared first on Law Street.

A French naval vessel has detected a signal from one of the black boxes onboard the EgyptAir flight that crashed on its way from Paris to Cairo two weeks ago. This means we will hopefully know soon whether it was terrorism, a technical glitch, or human error that brought the plane down.

The French ship used special locator equipment to discover signals from the depths of the Mediterranean on Wednesday and investigators later confirmed that they came from one of the plane’s flight recorders. The search area is located about 180 miles north of the Egyptian coast, which is where authorities estimate the plane went down. The airplane’s wreckage is believed to be located about 10,000 feet, or a little more than 3,000 meters, deep. The next step is to wait for another ship, specialized in retrieving objects from the seabed, to recover the flight recorders. That ship is now on its way to the location and is set to join the search within a week.

Discovering the signal from the EgyptAir data recorder is a huge step toward understanding what happened to the plane. Because each recorder can only broadcast its signal for up to three miles, finding it means you are very close to the site of the crash. But time is essential since the batteries that emit the signal only last for 30 days after crashing, a factor that has made the search urgent.

The plane that crashed was an Airbus A320 on its way from Paris to Cairo, carrying 66 people. It sent out distress signal  indicating there was smoke onboard shortly before crashing May 19, but no one knows what could have caused the smoke. So far the only physical evidence from the crash that has been found includes small parts of debris, human remains, and personal belongings.

If the black boxes are intact and undamaged, their information will be able to tell investigators what went on during the plane’s last moments in the air.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post EgyptAir Crash: Signal from Black Box Detected appeared first on Law Street.

Historically speaking, when a nation suffers a tragedy–a mass shooting, a terrible earthquake, a humanitarian disaster–world leaders offer condolences. They attempt, at the very least, to assuage fears, to pray, to be the sympathetic speak piece for their citizenry. In a time of calamity, presidents and prime ministers show solidarity with one another and with their respective peoples. Ironically, tragedies connect people, as people grieve for other people, no matter the flag they wave. Everyone recognizes loss.

Not so for Donald Trump. When disaster strikes a nation not named America, Trump preens his feathers–primarily on Twitter–asking rhetorical questions and subtly hinting that such things simply would not happen on his watch.

On Thursday morning an EgyptAir flight from Paris to Cairo went missing. Sixty-six people were on board the flight, which has been confirmed to have crashed in the Mediterranean Sea off the Greek island of Crete. And while signs are pointing to a terrorist attack, nothing concrete has been announced.

Trump–a man who waves off facts like they’re a bad business deal–saw this as an opportunity to present himself as the iron fisted leader that would apparently strike down insidious plots that even the world’s leading intelligence officials struggle with. Hours after the plane was announced missing, Trump took to his go-to megaphone, Twitter:

Looks like yet another terrorist attack. Airplane departed from Paris. When will we get tough, smart and vigilant? Great hate and sickness!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 19, 2016

No mention of prayer. No mention of shared suffering. No nod to the losses dealt to 66 families. No sign of humanity. No cautioned stance due to a lack of facts. Just a self-serving, speculative burst of nonsense. The only fact to be found: “Airplane departed from Paris.”

Some may argue that a 140-character shot of sympathy and solidarity is hardly the most genuine sign of love and oneness in the world. And they are correct, in a sense. But when Trump wakes up in his Mar-a-Lago mansion, scans Twitter and sees a plane that left Paris for Cairo is missing, his reaction is to deem it a terrorist attack and posture himself as the theoretical savior. It’s telling that it doesn’t even cross his mind to shoot out a tweet recognizing the victims or their families or their home countries. He just narrows his gaze, tightens his mouth, and puffs his chest.

This is not the first time Trump has responded to a tragedy in such a way.

Following the mass shooting in Paris in January 2015–when 17 people were murdered, including members of the satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo–Trump thrust the spotlight on gun control, using the episode as proof gun control doesn’t equal less violence:

Isn’t it interesting that the tragedy in Paris took place in one of the toughest gun control countries in the world?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 7, 2015

After 32 people were killed in Brussels in March, bombed in an airport terminal and a subway, Trump let this tweet go:

Do you all remember how beautiful and safe a place Brussels was. Not anymore, it is from a different world! U.S. must be vigilant and smart!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 22, 2016

While he did follow that up with an empathetic message to the victims (though not without his own stamp: “This madness must be stopped, and I will stop it.”), he again posited his own agenda ahead of any mention of non-American lives lost.

This is the man who could lead the most powerful country in the world. If elected president in November, he is the symbol of America’s well of empathy, of its heart. Does America’s heart bleed when another nation’s does? Does America shed a tear when another nation suffers? Trump is promising to make this country great again, but it can’t be great unless its supposed leader grieves with everyone else.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post When the World Sees Grief, Trump Sees Gain appeared first on Law Street.

The most infamous refugee camp in Calais, France is currently being dismantled by bulldozers, sledgehammers, and axes while its residents clash with police. “The Jungle,” which has existed since 2002, is being razed as conditions have gotten so unsanitary that French authorities can no longer maintain the camp.

The Jungle has been destroyed and rebuilt in the past, but the influx of immigrants over the past year has led to a swell in the population of the camp, making it a much more daunting task to relocate camp inhabitants. There are concerns that, with waves of anti-immigrant sentiment sweeping across Europe, immigrants who leave the Jungle may be vulnerable to violence when they are relocated to other areas. Other smaller “jungles” have emerged in France but none has created the same social networks and infrastructure as the Calais camp. The Jungle may not be sanitary or pleasant but there is a sense of community that will be challenging to recreate once the settlement has been destroyed.

According to The Guardian,

The noise of hammering is everywhere, as refugees knock up basic wooden frames that become, in the space of a day, restaurants and shops, hairdressers and phone-charging booths, arranged along an informal high street. Volunteers from across Europe have built a school, a day-care center for children, a library, a couple of mosques, a church, a refugee advice center, an art therapy tent and medical centers.

As of last month, there were approximately 5,500 migrants living in the Jungle. Over half of these migrants live in the areas of the camp that are currently being destroyed. Inhabitants of the Jungle have taken matters into their own hands, clambering onto roofs and throwing stones at the demolition forces moving through the camp. Multiple young men sewed their mouths shut in protest and a hunger strike was instituted among several Iranian camp residents.

Conditions in the camp are deplorable. The Jungle is located on top of a former toxic waste dump, where fire hazards are plentiful and the close living quarters allow diseases to spread quickly. The French government cannot let the Jungle to continue as it is, yet evacuating the camp leaves thousands of people homeless. Perhaps if there was some sort of guarantee that these refugees would not be attacked once they left the camp, there would be more cooperation in relocating to new camps. However, after arson attacks on refugee camps in Germany, moving to an unknown camp–where there are no well-established social networks and protections–feels like condemnation for many of the refugees.

The Jungle operates by the same code that slums across the world have used for centuries–it is dangerous and unsanitary, but for the people who live there, there is a form of safety that comes from community. Unfortunately, the sheer size of the camp, which is the reason it has created a diverse, thriving community, is exactly what has doomed the camp to destruction. Ultimately, 5,500 people cannot live in such a small geographic area without compromising sanitation and resources. There is no clear solution to end the protests in the Jungle, as both the French officials and the protesting migrants have valid motivations for their actions. However, the police forces’ use of tear gas and hoses does not serve the interests of either side. As French use of force escalates, refugees are responding in kind, mutating the Jungle from a safe haven to a “war zone.”

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post “The Jungle”: Riots in the Calais Refugee Camp appeared first on Law Street.

Last night, news of a horrific series of terror attacks in Paris, France, shook the world. The final death toll is unknown, but as of now, it is at 127, with over 300 injured. According to French authorities, there were eight attackers, all of whom are now dead. The attacks occurred at places of joy and celebration: like a soccer stadium, a concert hall, and restaurants. ISIL has taken responsibility for the acts of terror, although that claim has yet to be verified. However, the Islamic State claims that the attacks were in retribution for France’s involvement in Syria.

President Francois Hollande called the attacks by ISIL an “act of war.” He stated that they were:

Committed by a terrorist army, the Islamic State group, a jihadist army, against France, against the values that we defend everywhere in the world, against what we are: A free country that means something to the whole planet.

Shock, awe, compassion, and sadness still dominate the international conversation. Prominent world leaders have made statements in support of France, devoting aid and support in these horrible circumstances.

President Obama gave a brief statement in the White House briefing room on Friday night. He stated:

This is an attack not just on Paris, it’s an attack not just on the people France, but this is an attack on all of humanity and the universal values we share. We stand prepared and ready to provide whatever assistance that the government and the people of France need to respond.

British Prime Minister David Cameron echoed the same sentiments, pledging British support for France:

Shocked, but resolute. In sorrow, but unbowed. My message to the French people is simple: Nous sommes solidaires avec vous. Nous sommes tous ensemble. We stand with you. United.

Others who spoke against the attack included Pope Francis, who called the attacks a piece of the “piecemeal World War Three.” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pledged solidarity, and Russian President Vladimir Putin wrote to Hollande that the acts of terror were “proof of the barbarian nature of terrorism, which challenges the human civilization.”

The world also took to social media to show its support for the people of France–Facebook users are adorning their photos with a blue, white, and red filter, the colors of the French flag. Others took the time to share their thoughts on Twitter:

“When Paris turned off its lights, the rest of the world turned them on.” pic.twitter.com/Ed7uHzQtHq

— chilly (@billyganbold_) November 14, 2015

Don’t allow this horrific act allow you to be drawn into the loss of your humanity or tolerance. That is the intended outcome. #ParisAttacks — Mark Ruffalo (@MarkRuffalo) November 14, 2015

Powerful Image: The U.S. stands with France after the #ParisAttacks by cartoonist Steve Benson. pic.twitter.com/xngRW9XHTx

— Luis (@LuisANavia) November 14, 2015

Details are still coming out about the specifics of the attacks, as well as the ultimate response. For now, thoughts are with the people of Paris, as they struggle to get through this troubling time.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Terror Attacks in France: The World Reacts appeared first on Law Street.

“Avengers: Age of Ultron,” the latest hit in the Avengers franchise, debuted in theaters recently and made more than $200 million in a single weekend. The surprising part however, is that it earned that $200 million outside the U.S., before the movie even opened stateside. The increasing globalization of the film industry is abundantly clear. But the changes in the film industry aren’t just reflected in the exports of American movies to foreign audiences. There are also many nations expanding into the industry. Read on to learn about the globalization of the film industry, and its worldwide ramifications.

The American Film Industry: Changes From Sea to Shining Sea

While Hollywood is facing greater competition from abroad in almost every aspect of the film industry, it is still the dominant player globally. In 2014, for example, the top ten most profitable movies were all made in the United States.

Hollywood has had to adjust to a changing customer base. Nearly 60 percent of the box office hauls taken in by these big productions came from abroad. This means that the success of the Hollywood movie industry is driven more by foreign markets than domestic. In fact, the number two market for Hollywood films, China, is predicted to surpass the American market by 2020.

In response to this changing environment, Hollywood is increasingly relying on big-budget blockbusters. These movies have been particularly marketable specifically because of their simple plot lines, which often avoid nuanced or culturally specific stories that might get lost in translation. Additionally, Hollywood often adds extra scenes to movies released in other countries, sometimes featuring actors from those countries, in order to make them more relatable. This has meant making changes to movies, too. For example, in the remake of “Red Dawn,” the nationality of the invading soldiers was changed from Chinese to North Korean in order to avoid alienating the Chinese movie audience.

Foreign Film Industries: The Veterans

Although Hollywood, as a result of globalization, is facing stiffer competition abroad, there has long existed a traditional foreign film industry. The center of this industry is located in Europe

European Film Industry

While every country in Europe makes movies, five countries in particular make up 80 percent of the market: France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy, and Spain. The industry itself is also massive in scope, including 75,000 companies and 370,000 workers across Europe.

In addition to the number of people involved, Europe is also home to some of the most prestigious events in cinema. Perhaps the most famous is the Cannes Film Festival in France. This event has taken place nearly every year since 1946, with filmmakers from all walks of life competing for the coveted Palme d’Or prize for the best film in the competition.

Despite the success of the film industry in Europe, it has struggled to deal with foreign competition, particularly Hollywood. As of 2013, 70 percent of the European film market was dominated by American films. This is in stark contrast to a much smaller 26 percent coming directly from European sources.

But as Hollywood has made efforts to keep its industry relevant, so has Europe. One of the most prominent attempts has been through the LUX competition. Seeking to address one of the most glaring problems in Europe’s film industry–distributing and dubbing movies in all the languages spoken in Europe–the films involved in this competition are sub-titled in 24 different languages so as to be accessible to a wide audience.

Film Industries Down Under

Australia and New Zealand also have prominent film industries. While Australia is currently dealing with losing out on some projects because its tax credits are not competitive enough, there is a strong tradition already in place. For example, “Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith” as well as the “Matrix” trilogy were both filmed there.

The New Zealand film industry is strong and thriving. This has been the result of two forces. First, home-grown production of films such as “The Piano,” which won three Oscars in 1993, has helped promote the industry. There has also been a rise of recognizable talent coming out of the country, including director Peter Jackson. Like Australia, New Zealand has also been the location of major Hollywood productions such as “Avatar,” “King Kong,” and “The Last Samurai” to name just a few.

Rising Stars

Other countries are continuing to create voices of their own through national film industries. Three of the most successful countries in creating major movie industries of their own have been India, Nigeria, and South Korea.

India

Although Hollywood is the most profitable film industry worldwide, India’s is the most productive based on its sheer number of films. India’s film production is so prodigious that it has earned a nickname of its own: Bollywood, in reference to the city of Mumbai. In fact, India’s industry is so expansive that the Bollywood moniker is really only applicable to Mumbai–other regions and cities have film industries of their own that have spawned similar nicknames, such as “Kollywood” and “Sandalwood.”

While the Indian film industry has been a compelling force for more than 100 years, it has seen a huge jump in growth recently. From 2004-2013, gross receipts tripled and revenue is estimated to reach $4.5 billion next year. With those kinds of numbers, India’s film industry promises to continue its upward trajectory in money and influence.

Nigeria

The Nigerian film industry also produces more films per year than Hollywood, and it has the similar nickname “Nollywood.” Nigeria’s films are often lower-budget productions that are released directly to DVD and often not even filmed in a studio. Nonetheless, the Nigerian film industry is influential enough regionally that neighboring countries fear a Nigerianization effect on their own cultures.

The Nigerian film industry is so popular that the World Bank believes that with the proper management it could create a million more jobs in a country with high unemployment levels. The film industry in Nigeria already employs a million people, making it the second-largest employer in the country behind the agricultural sector. Still, for Nigeria to be on the same level as Hollywood or Bollywood, many issues would have to be addressed, in particular the high rate of film pirating. The video below explores Nollywood and its impact on Hollywood.

South Korea

South Korea also has a strong film industry, although it doesn’t have a catchy nickname. While it does not generate the volume of films of Bollywood or Nollywood, it does have the advantage of being the go-to destination for entertainment for much of Asia, particularly China and Japan. South Korea’s movies resonate both domestically and regionally because they often play on historical conflicts that affected the region as a whole. The film industry there also received a boost when a law was passed stating that at least 40 percent of films shown in South Korea had to be produced there, forcing local companies to step up and fill the void.

What does film industry globalization mean?

Money

One of the most obvious implications of globalization is financing. Several major Hollywood studios including Disney have bankrolled films in Bollywood. This is in an attempt to harness the massive potential audience there. Financing is a two-way street however, and when Hollywood struggled for funds following the 2008 recession it received loans and financing from Indian sources.

Culture

Another implication is cultural. In many countries, the government has posted quotas or imposed tariffs on foreign films to limit their dominance domestically. These laws are aimed specifically at American movies. One of the motivations for these rules is the competition American films provide. In basically every domestic market worldwide, Hollywood movies have a larger share than the domestic industry. Secondly, movies are seen as cultural pillars, so leaders are interested in preserving, and even promoting their own culture over that of a foreign entity like the one presented by Hollywood.

Like financing, cultural considerations also have a return effect on Hollywood. In order to attract more foreign viewers, Hollywood movies have simplified story lines and included more actors from different locales. In effect, Hollywood has had to become more diverse and open in order to appeal worldwide. This effect may actually dilute any would-be American cultural overload as well, as these movies are incorporating more global cultures in order to be competitive.

Globalization is a give and take. There has been a long-standing fear of globalization leading to Americanization; however, as the film industry has shown, for American filmmakers or any others to be competitive globally their themes and characters must be global, too. Additionally the invasion of Hollywood movies has also encouraged many domestic industries to build up their own audiences and industries that had been neglected before.

Conclusion

Hollywood has long dealt with issues, ideas, and events that have stretched the world over, and it is now dealing with competition as diverse and far reaching as the topics of the movies it produces. The Hollywood film industry had remained the dominant player in the industry by leveraging foreign markets. Globally this has also meant the incorporation of more films and actors from traditional markets such as Europe. It also means the rise of movies and stars from non-traditional markets as well. Thus the globalization of the film industry has meant many things to many different people, but what it has meant to everyone involved from production to consumption is greater access and opportunity. Hopefully, the global film industry will continue along this path.

Resources

Arts.Mic: Three Countries With Booming Movie Industries That Are Not the U.S.

BBC: How the Global Box Office is Changing Hollywood

Vanity Fair: Avengers Age of Ultron is Already a Huge, Hulking Hit at the Box Office

Business Insider: The Highest Grossing Movies of 2014

Grantland: All the World’s a Stage

Law Without Borders: The Intersection of Hollywood and the Indian Film Industry

Los Angeles Daily News: Why TV, Film Production is Running Away From Hollywood.

European Parliament Think Tank: An Overview of Europe’s Film Industry

BBC: Australia Film Industry Hurt by Strong Currency

International Journal of Cultural Policy: Cultural Globalization and the Dominance of the American Film Industry

UN: Nigeria’s Film Industry a Potential Gold Mine

Festival De Cannes: History of the Festival

100% Pure New Zealand: History of New Zealand Screen Industry

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Globalization of Cinema: What’s Next? appeared first on Law Street.

On Saturday May 9^th a transformer fire broke out in New York. While this was a seemingly innocuous event, there was more to the incident than just a fire. It broke out at the site of a nuclear power plant, located only about 35 miles from Manhattan. While the fire never spread to the nuclear power plant itself and there was no immediate threat of a nuclear meltdown, the potential danger was concerning. Yet these risks are just part of the balancing act that is required to harness nuclear power for energy. Read on to learn about the development of nuclear energy, its risks, and its rewards.

History of Nuclear Power

Developing the Technology

The first notions of atoms can be traced all the way back to the ancient Greeks, who philosophized about tiny, unseen elements which combine to form the world around us. But the real work on nuclear energy essentially started in the early years of the 20th century. In the late 1930s, German scientists, following the previous example set by Italian physicist Enrico Fermi, bombarded uranium with neutron, causing it to split. The experiment and subsequent efforts revealed that during the fission process some mass is converted into energy.

In 1942, Fermi took the next step by achieving a self-sustaining chain reaction underneath the University of Chicago’s athletic stadium. This step effectively ushered in the nuclear age. During WWII this field was mainly focused on harnessing the power of the fission reaction into some type of weapon. However, following the war focus returned to producing energy from the reaction, as part of the Atomic Energy Commission created by Congress in 1946. The first reactor to produce electricity was in Idaho on December 20, 1951. The first nuclear powered plant that created power for public use in the United States was in Shippingport, Pennsylvania in 1957.

How do nuclear power plants work?

There are two types of nuclear power plants and they work in separate ways to generate power. In a pressurized water reactor, water is pressurized but not allowed to boil. The water is then streamed though pipes and turned in to steam which powers the generators. In this type of reactor, the water creating the steam and the water in the reactor do not mix.

The other type is known as a boiling water reactor. As the name implies, in this case the water is allowed to boil and turns into steam through fission. The steam, like in the pressurized reactors, turns the generators, which create electricity. In both systems, the water can also be reused once it has been reconverted from steam back into its liquid form.

The Nuclear Power Industry

Following the opening of the plant in Pennsylvania, the industry continued to grow rapidly throughout the 1960s as corporations across the U.S. saw the possibility of a power source that was viewed as a cheaper, safer, and more environmentally friendly than traditional sources, such as coal. However, this trend began to reverse in the 1970s and 80s as the popular opinion of nuclear power became negative and many of the strong selling points of nuclear energy became areas of concern.

Nevertheless, as of January 2015, 31 countries were operating 439 nuclear power plants worldwide, although the number of operating plants can fluctuate slightly based on different definitions of the term “operable.” The United States has the most plants at 99, almost twice as many as the next country France, which has 58. The plants themselves are located predominately in what are commonly considered the more developed countries. One of the major explanations for this phenomenon are the high costs required to build a nuclear power plant. Another major factor in the peaceful use of nuclear power is the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or NPT.

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) has been one of bedrocks for peacefully spreading, and at times hampering, the spread of nuclear power worldwide. The first step can probably be traced back to a speech given by President Dwight Eisenhower. This speech, coined the “Atoms for Peace” speech, provided a blueprint for effectively managing nuclear proliferation following WWII. It also paved the way for spreading nuclear technology in a positive way.

While many of the suggested measures from Eisenhower’s speech were not taken, the International Atomic Energy Agency was born out of his ideas. This agency provided the prospect of nuclear knowledge in exchange for agreeing to safeguards and arms limits. While it worked in some cases, it could not halt the military aspect of nuclear research. It did however help give rise to the NPT.

The NPT divided countries into the proverbial nuclear weapon haves and have nots. Its requirements were also essentially the same, in return for allowing inspections countries were giving technical knowhow. While there are many criticisms levied against the NPT, it did work to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, while helping some nations gain nuclear power as an energy source.

A Series of Unfortunate Events

Despite all the efforts made to safeguard nuclear energy, there are still many concerns over the safety of nuclear power plants. This danger has manifested itself several times over the course of the nuclear power age, both internationally and abroad.

The worst nuclear power plant disaster in history was in Chernobyl, Ukraine which was then part of the Soviet Union. During the disaster, 50 people were killed at the plant and as many as a million more were exposed to the radiation. The amount of radioactive fallout released into the air, as a result, was 400 times more than what had been released in the bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima in 1945.

Domestically, the worst nuclear energy disaster was the Three Mile Island incident in 1979. During the crisis on an island in Pennsylvania, a full nuclear meltdown was narrowly avoided and no one was killed. Nonetheless, the stigma created from the ordeal was a key contributing factor to the decline of new nuclear plants in the U.S. during the 1970s and 80s.

The most recent disaster came in 2011 in Fukushima, Japan. During this disaster a massive earthquake, followed by a tsunami, damaged the nuclear reactors in Fukushima. This led to a nuclear meltdown that killed as many as 1000 people trying to evacuate the area.

These are just three examples, but there are more, both in the U.S. and abroad. While nuclear energy has been lauded for its sustainability and limited impact on the environment, the threat of a nuclear meltdown is a major consideration in regards to expanding the technology going forward.

The Future of Nuclear Energy

With last week’s fire at a nuclear facility rekindling fears over the dangers of nuclear technology, what exactly is the future of nuclear energy both domestically and abroad? In answering that, two aspects need to be considered, namely nuclear waste and security.

Waste

Although nuclear energy is often touted as a clean alternative to other energy sources, such as coal and natural gas, it has its own waste issues. In the U.S. alone each year approximately 2000 metric tons of high-level radioactive waste are generated. Troublingly, there is no permanent repository for this nuclear waste so it remains stored on site, potentially vulnerable to attack and leakage.

The waste issue continues further down the supply chain as well. The mining of uranium, which occurs mostly outside of the U.S. and therefore also partly nullifies any argument in relation to energy independence, is a very harrowing experience. A number of chemicals are used to mine Uranium which poison both the surrounding environment and the workers involved in the extraction.

Security

Along with waste is the issue of security. It has already been shown that the security of a nuclear power plant can be jeopardized by human error and natural disasters. However after 9/11 there have been fears of a terrorist attack on a nuclear facility. While the nuclear plants are supposedly protected by measures designed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), there are acknowledged vulnerabilities.

Air and sea attacks could be problematic, as well as multiple coordinated attacks on a facility at once. Spent nuclear rods are particularly vulnerable to attack as they sit outside of controlled nuclear reactors. While the NRC has made strides in some of these categories, especially in regards to potential air strikes, concerns remain that it still falls short in other categories such as potential land and sea assaults. Furthermore, force on force tests–staged attacks on nuclear plants–showed at least 5 percent of plants are still not adequately protected even after changes were made to increase protection following 9/11.

These fears include other worries that stem from the Soviet collapse of the early 90s. These are centered on what are termed as “loose nukes”– unaccounted nuclear weapons from the Soviet Union. Similar concerns may also arise as civil wars continue in countries such as Iraq or Syria who at one time were known to be pursuing nuclear weapons.

Staying the course?

Coupled with waste and security concerns are also cost considerations. Nuclear power plants are very expensive to maintain and suffer a failure rate, in regards to financing, of over 50 percent, meaning tax payers are often required to bail them out. In light of all these considerations and with other truer sustainable energy sources it would seem the days of nuclear energy would be numbered.

This assumption is wrong however, as already 70 new plants are under construction with 400 more proposed worldwide. While many of these will never leave the drawing table, the rise in construction and planning of new nuclear plants points to nuclear power’s proven track record in at least one regard–battling CO2 emissions and producing power on a scale that currently far exceeds any other renewable options.

This option is particularly attractive to countries with state-run governments that can commit to long term investments and are desperate to move beyond major polluters such as coal-power plants, such as China. Meanwhile in Western democracies while some construction is planned, many are working toward phasing out nuclear power altogether. In this regard Germany is leading the pack and has pledged to be completely nuclear free by 2022. The following video explores the future of nuclear power:

Conclusion

Nuclear energy seems to be the ultimate compromise. While it is cleaner than coal or gas plants, it still produces radioactive waste that has no long term storage location and takes thousands of years to decay. Conversely it has a proven track record and while it may cost more to build new nuclear facilities than any other energy source, the energy produced far outpaces many alternatives. Thus, the world with its ever growing energy demands is left to maintain the delicate balance. We are still in the nuclear age, although how long we’ll stay here remains uncertain.

Resources

Primary

Department of Energy: The History of Nuclear Energy

Additional

United States History: International Atomic Energy Agency

Physicians for Social Responsibility: Dirty, Dangerous and Expensive The Truth About Nuclear Power

CNN: After Explosion at Nuclear Plant, Concerns of Environmental Damage

Duke Energy: How Do Nuclear Plants Work?

European Nuclear Society: Nuclear Power Plants Worldwide

Arms Control Association: Arms Control Today

Foreign Policy: Think Again Nuclear Proliferation

CNBC: 11 Nuclear Meltdowns and Disasters

World Nuclear Association: Fukushima Accident

Union of Concerned Scientists: Nuclear Plant Security

BBC News: Nuclear power Energy for the Future or Relic of the Past?

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Nuclear Energy: Worth the Risk? appeared first on Law Street.

The number one article of the week at Law Street comes from writer Frank Halprin who shared the news that we may be on the brink of running out of precious metals such as gold; number two, from Worldwide Orphans, is an excellent explainer on the world’s orphan population; and the third most popular article of the week, from Ashley Shaw, details proposed legislation in France that would prohibit looking like a prostitute. ICYMI: Check out the best of the week from Law Street.

#1 Is the World Running Out of Precious Metals and Gems?

Goldman Sachs suggests that there are only twenty more years worth of mineable gold, diamonds, and zinc, and forty years of platinum, copper, and nickel. The quality of the metals and the yields per ore discovery have also declined significantly in the last half century. So what might some consequences be? The gold mining industry will be hard pressed to maintain its profit margins if there is less and less to find, and there may be increased competition to find what does remain. Naturally, the prices of gold could rise exorbitantly. Read full article here.

#2 Defining Orphans: The World’s Most Vulnerable Children

According to UNICEF, there are 153 million children across the globe who are defined as orphans. These children, and others, are at risk for poverty, health concerns, neglect, and abuse. They are the world’s orphans. Read on to learn about how children can become orphans, what it means to be an orphan, and how underlying social problems lead to children being orphaned. Read full article here.

#3 France Considers Law Banning ‘Looking Like a Prostitute’

Ladies, imagine you are all dressed up and ready to hit the town. You’ve got on your short skirt, your stilettos, and your low cut top. You’re looking good. Now, you can’t just sit around when you look this nice, so you have to decide: where are you going to go? Do you know yet? Good! (I really, really hope that nobody said France. Please don’t have said France.) Read full article here.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Ladies, imagine you are all dressed up and ready to hit the town. You’ve got on your short skirt, your stilettos, and your low cut top. You’re looking good. Now, you can’t just sit around when you look this nice, so you have to decide: where are you going to go? Do you know yet? Good! (I really, really hope that nobody said France.)

Courtesy of Giphy.

If your night on the town does consist of a visit to France, it is advisable to bring bail money. Because France is set to pass a law that would make “looking like a prostitute” illegal. So no more standing on corners in your high heels and sexy dress–no matter how innocent your plans are. The French cops don’t want to have stop, examine your motives, and decide if there is a problem. Just arresting you is a whole lot easier.

Courtest of Giphy.

If this anti-vice law is passed, it will be illegal to appear to be offering sex for sale. Because in France, while it is legal to pay for sex, it is illegal to be paid for sex. Moreover, it may soon be illegal to look like you’re the type of person that would accept pay for sex.

The purpose of the law is to clean up red light districts where hookers line the streets. Having a law like this, however, obviously does not mean that prostitution will disappear in France, so if your vacation plans include visiting one, do not despair. (But also, probably reevaluate your plans, for obvious reasons). While it won’t disappear, it could, however, drastically change the hooker look. It is assumed that when the law is implemented, prostitutes will start to wear jeans and sneakers. So instead of wearing “hooker heels,” ladies will now go out on the town in their “hooker sneakers” and, as far as my feet are concerned, that’s a great deal!

The concern I would have is that if casual dress is the new prostitute attire, but it is illegal to look like a prostitute, then wouldn’t casual dress become illegal? And if casual dress became illegal, then prostitutes would have to find some other mode of dress. Perhaps business, which is fitting since it is the oldest profession, but then eventually business wear would cause you to look like a prostitute, and that would be banned. And so on and so on until your only choice is to go naked. And if running around naked doesn’t scream sex appeal, I don’t know what does.  But maybe I’m overthinking things.

To sum it up, in the words of Justin Bieber, “Stay sexy, girl.” Unless you are in France. In which case, stop looking sexy immediately.

Courtesy of Giphy.

—

Ashley Shaw (@Smoldering_Ashs) is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured iImage courtesy of [Seth Anderson via Flickr]

Ashley Shaw

Ashley Shaw is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post France Considers Law Banning “Looking Like a Prostitute” appeared first on Law Street.

It’s long been a pretty poorly kept secret in the fashion industry that many models are very thin–some dangerously so. For years, there’s been various debates in the industry over whether or not to make rules restricting the weight of models to ensure that the women (and men) showing off the latest high fashion designs are a healthy weight. Now France, one of the bastions of the fashion world, took a pretty strong step in that direction. A new French law prevents super-skinny models from being hired by designers and fashion houses. Industry members who do so may be subject to fines, or possibly even jail time.

The new law would essentially ban models who have a Body Mass Index (BMI) under 18. BMIs are calculated on a sort of sliding scale that takes into account an individual’s height and weight. The BMI then fits into one of a few different categories–including under healthy weight, healthy weight, overweight, and obese. However, doctors would also be consulted to ensure that the BMI test was being administered fairly, and to take into account the unique build and structure of the individual. Under a BMI of 18.5 is usually considered under healthy weight, and can be a marker to determine if someone has an eating disorder, such as anorexia or bulimia. There’s been an increased awareness brought to the problem of anorexia recently, particularly after the death of Isabelle Caro, a French fashion model who passed away most likely due to the disease in 2010.

An important aspect of the law to keep in mind is that it punishes the agencies or houses that hire the models, not the models themselves. This is to keep members of the industry from putting pressure on the models to lose weight, or stay at an unhealthy weight. As Dr. Oliver Véran, one of the legislators behind the bill put it, “a person should not be obliged to starve herself in order to work.”

France isn’t the first country to implement laws about the sizes of its fashion models. Other nations, such as Israel, Spain, and Italy have limited measures in place as well. However France’s seems to be the most sweeping. In France, punishments for employing a model who is below the healthy weight threshold could include a fine of up to 75,000 Euros ($82,000, under the current exchange rate), or up to six months of jail time.

Not everyone is on board with the new legislation however. Some think that the restrictions are too harsh, as well as too sweeping–they don’t allow as much ability to decide on an ad-hoc basis whether or not a model is healthy. That criticism includes the argument that just because a model has a BMI over the given level, does not mean that they are “healthy,” but could still be suffering from a debilitating eating disorder. Isabelle Saint-Felix, who heads up France’s National Union of Modeling Agencies stated:

When you look at the criteria behind anorexia, you can’t look only at the body mass index when other criteria are also involved: psychological, a history of hair loss, dental problems. It’s important that the models are healthy, but it’s a little simplistic to think there won’t be any more anorexics if we get rid of very thin models.

Overall, the recognition of possible dangerous attitudes in the modeling industry seems like a step in the right direction. That being said, there is clearly still more work to be done to ensure the fact that the models from the world’s top designers are healthy role models.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New French Law to Ban Models Below Healthy Weight appeared first on Law Street.

There’s no gray area quite like international law. Historically speaking it’s a relatively new field, and every nation accepts various parts of it. But essentially there are a number of different treaties, measures, and conventions that mediate the ways in which our nations interact, both in war and peace. Nations have certain obligations, and despite the United States’ abysmal track record when it comes to international law, we’re held to them too. We don’t live in a vacuum. After the collective political hissy fit that 47 Senators just had in the form of a truly condescending letter to Iran, it’s time to remind Senate Republicans of that.

The United States has long been dismissive of international law, and understandably so. For example, we have refused to ratify the Rome Statute–the document that created the International Criminal Court–out of fear that our heads of state could ever be tried in an international court. In fact, the United States has long occupied a position upon a hypocritical throne, condemning the actions of others that don’t fall in line with international norms and agreements while seldom being held to other international standards ourselves. That’s not necessarily a bad thing. The U.S. has been the world’s superpower for decades, and we’ve acted the part.

Just because the United States is the only real superpower doesn’t mean that we got there on our own. We have allies, most of whom belong to NATO and are located in Western Europe. Could we be a superpower without Germany, and the United Kingdom, and France? Probably. Would it be harder? Almost certainly. Here’s an example: yesterday, U.S. Navy Secretary Ray Mabus reached out to our allies asking them for help in the fight against ISIS. At a Senate Armed Services Committee meeting Mabus stated with regard to our international allies’ cooperation in the ISIS fight, “we can’t do it by ourselves and they have to carry their fair share of the burden.” Senator Roger Wicker, a Republican from Mississippi (who also signed the letter to Iran) said:

We are going to have to insist on more of a contribution from our international partners. We keep the lanes open for them. Our friends in Europe, our NATO friends and our other friends are depending upon what you are talking about. We are going to have to collectively come up with a plan to convince our partners that it is in their interests too to make the financial sacrifice.

We could deal with ISIS without our international partners, most likely. But any politicians who put us in that position would face a lot of backlash for the political and financial ramifications.

What does this have to do with Iran, and the remarkable letter that Senate Republicans sent to Iran’s government? Well, it’s important to remember that this deal, like any aspect of international politics, does not exist in a vacuum. Most importantly, this isn’t just a negotiation between Iran and the U.S., it involves five other countries and will be endorsed by a U.N. Security Council Resolution. We would prefer not to piss off the U.K., Germany, and France for the aforementioned reasons. Although our relationship with China is rocky at best, it’s hands down one of our biggest trading partners. Finally, the hot mess that is Putin’s Russia is at the very least a major player on the world stage, and it would probably be in our best interest to not piss it off either.

So, when Senate Republicans wrote that laughably snappish letter to Iran warning about a future president overturning a deal they don’t like “with the stroke of a pen,” that indicates that said fictional future president wouldn’t just be screwing a deal with Iran–they’d be doing the same thing to the U.K., Germany, France, China, and Russia as well. That doesn’t necessarily mean that anything would come of it–it would probably take a hell of a lot more to lose the loyalty of some of our closest allies–but it’s still not a good move for a new president to make.

That’s sort of the crux of the issue though. Either Senate Republicans don’t give a crap about the delicate balance of global politics, or they are so desperate to stick it to President Obama that they no longer care. Either way, the letter was an extraordinarily dumb move by a remarkably short-sighted group.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Hey Senate Republicans: Iran Negotiations Involve Other Countries appeared first on Law Street.

One good thing about living in the USA is that constitution-given right to freedom of speech. So, for example, I could name my child whatever I wanted (unless maybe it is something along the lines of Hitler). While this may not seem like much, it is better than what we might get in some countries–though kids who were “allowed” to be named whatever weird thing passed through their parents’ heads at naming time might not think this is a good idea, right Apple Martin? Right my sister, Novella? (Named after short novels.)

Some countries tell you what you can or cannot name your child through the use of approved lists, banned lists, etc. Or, as is the case in France, the country lets you name the kid whatever you want, but then might decide the name is not in the kid’s best interest and require a name-change.

Just ask the parents of little Nutella…er, Ella. You see, a French court recently decided that naming your child after a trademarked, chocolatety, eatable spread could cause the child to be ridiculed one day. And since all any kid needs is one more reason to be made fun of when they reach the horrible school-year ages, the court felt that this needed to be rectified. Apparently, the name was bad enough that they felt the need to rule on it. And, as you might suppose from everything I have already said, they ruled that the baby should be renamed; however, the parents of the baby decided not to show up to trial, so the court was forced to pick a new name for the kid on its own. And thus, Ella was born–the name, not the child, who had obviously already been born by this point.

Courtesy of Giphy.

This was not the only time France has banned a name. They have also overruled Fraise, or ‘strawberry’ in French. So basically, what I am getting is that French judges hate chocolate covered strawberries, if not anything that could be related to fondue–and anything that has to do with that whole fattening, if not delicious, world.

Courtesy of Giphy.

In conclusion, if you are planning on naming your child something weird, please do not birth your child in France. Or maybe do: your kid might name you parent of the year after having their name changed from Steak’n’Eggs to Stan because you were smart enough to go into labor in a place that cares so much about its citizens that it wants to get into their lives even at the naming stage.

Ashley Shaw

Ashley Shaw is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post French Court Renames Baby From Nutella to Ella appeared first on Law Street.

The violence in Paris several weeks ago united Europe as little else has in recent years. Plagued by economic decline, some of the more prosperous nations have voiced discontent with the state of the European Union. Partly leading this surge is a wave of far-right political movements. These nationalist movements are gaining traction from Berlin to Paris to London as people tire of stagnant economic growth and demands for bail outs.

Additionally in many of these countries, a dramatic demographic change is occurring in which traditional peoples and cultures are finding themselves increasingly co-habitating with people who have different beliefs and practices. Read on to learn about the political shift and rise of right-wing groups in Europe after years of economic concerns and changing demographics in the region.

History of the European Union

The European Union, unsurprisingly, traces its roots to the aftermath of WWII. With the continent in ruins, several representatives from leading nations attempted to finally find some way to unify the region and put an end to the seemingly endless fighting that had just led to the most destructive war the world has ever known.

The process started with the European Coal and Steel Community in 1951, which had six founding members: West Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands. These six nations agreed to unite their coal and steel production. The foundation was built up further with the Treaty of Rome in 1957, which created the European Economic Community (EEC). In 1967 the European Parliament was created and in 1979 it had its first direct elections.

The European Union itself was codified in 1993 through the Treaty of Maastricht. In 2002, the Euro replaced the currency of 12 of the 15 members of the organization. The Euro reached its highest value against the dollar in 2008; however, like much of the rest of the developed world, the EU was then rocked by the global economic crisis. Since this time, the EU has been attempting to fight off recession and recover, with the only real bright spot being the addition of its twenty-eighth member country Croatia in 2013. The video below gives a succinct explanation of the EU.

Economic Turmoil

In 2008 the global financial crisis hit the European Union and the results have been devastating both economically and with regard to the unity of the region.

The Rich

The economic crisis has hit both rich and poor countries within the Eurozone alike. While many of the rich countries were not in need of bail outs, they still suffered from high debt. First, they had to bail out those troubled fellow EU members that were unable to pay off their high debts after the crisis hit. They also lost markets to sell goods as the cash-strapped nations to the south could not afford to buy as much of their products.

Furthermore, while some indicators of a healthy economy appear to show rich countries in the EU doing well, these can be misleading. In the case of Germany for example, unemployment sits at a very respectable five percent; however, economic growth is virtually flat. In the third quarter of 2014 the economy only grew 0.1 percent, which followed on the heels of a second quarter in which Germany’s economy actually shrunk by 0.1 percent.

Germany is far from the only and certainly not the worst-off wealthy nation in the Eurozone either. France, the second largest economy in the EU, has an unemployment rate of over ten percent and grew only 0.3 percent during the third quarter of 2013. This miniscule growth, similar to that of Germany, also followed a second quarter contraction. Other cases include Spain, the number four economy, and Italy, the number three economy in the Eurozone, with unemployment rates of about 24 percent and 13 percent respectfully.

The Struggling

While the economic crisis certainly hit both wealthy and poor European nations, as is usually the case, the less robust economies ended up worse off. It begins of course with the bail outs. Ireland, Portugal, Greece, Spain, and Cyprus all had to accept large sums of money from other EU members to avoid default.

Furthermore, as a result of the bail outs, these countries and others struggling with the debt crisis have had to employ austerity measures; however, this strategy limits growth especially because creditors will be hesitant to lend money to struggling economies. This then creates a brutal cycle in which these countries have a difficult time paying off their debts because growth is low and unemployment will remain high. The video below gives a great explanation of the European Union’s economic problems.

Changing Demographics

Coupled with a shaky economic situation are dramatic demographic changes in Europe. This change can be divided into three categories: fertility, age, and ethnicity. First Europe as a whole has a very low fertility rate. Fertility rate is basically the number of children a family can expect to have during its childbearing years. Replacement level, or the level of children being born needed to adequately replace the existing population, is 2.1 children. In 2012 the average fertility rate for countries within the European Union was 1.6 children–well below replacement levels.

Since fewer children are being born, the average populations of these countries are rapidly aging. In Poland for example, the percentage of people above the working age population, 15-64, is expected to increase from 20.9 percent in 2010 to 58 percent in 2050. A large aging population can be a double edged sword, as not only are older people more dependent on public services such as health care and pensions, but they are also less productive in the economy and save less, which affects investing.

Thus a lack of new labor and a society that increasingly needs it has led to mass migration in Europe. This migration can be broken down into two groups. First is the traditional type of immigration, specifically from countries outside the EU to countries inside of it. In 2012, for example, 1.7 million people migrated to the European Union. The other type of migration is within the European Union itself; this figure also was approximately 1.7 million for the year 2012. Both types of migration are headed in one specific direction–west. Western European nations, which not coincidentally have the best economies, are bearing the brunt of the mass movements. The top five destinations in order of descending immigrant arrivals were Germany, the UK, Italy, France, and Spain.

It’s also important to note the origin of the people immigrating. Many are coming from Eastern Europe. A large portion of the incoming people and groups are also Muslim. While it cannot be reiterated enough that the vast majority of Muslim immigrants are in every way able adaptable to European life, there is tension in Europe over this influx. Current events, such as the fact that it has been estimated that currently as many as three thousand European-born Muslims have fought on behalf of ISIS or other extremist groups in the Middle East, haven’t helped this tension.

While fear of these fighters returning home has far outstripped any actual problems, the recent shootings in Paris show what can occur when a marginalized group becomes incredibly radicalized. Unfortunately this image of radicalized Muslims plays perfectly into the hands of politicians and right-wing groups that have come to prominence at the expense of immigrant groups.

Europe has a long history of xenophobia. When it deals with mass immigration, the fear has turned into Islamaphobia.  While western Europeans may not be particularly thrilled with eastern European immigrants, Muslims are being singled out in particular because of their different culture and the historical legacy of conflict between Christian and Muslim areas of Europe and the Middle East. This fear and Islamaphobia also extends to first and second generation Muslims as well, particularly in a time of economic uncertainty.

The Reemergence of the Right Wing

All these issues–economic problems, low fertility rates, and mass immigration–have led to a resurgence in the power and appeal of right-wing parties in Europe. More specifically, what has led to this rise is how economic problems are perceived as being compounded by immigration. For example, in the European Union the youth unemployment rate as a whole is 23 percent; in Greece it has been as high as 60 percent.

In a sadly ironic twist the backlash to this has usually been against immigrants who are perceived as stealing the few precious jobs that are available; however, immigration is necessary in the first place because the birth rates are so low. Additionally, immigrant populations have even higher unemployment rates than native youth.

As a result of these concerns, in recent elections several far-right parties including France’s Front National, Greece’s Golden Dawn, Hungary’s Jobbik, and the United Kingdom’s UKIP all won a surprising number of votes. Each of these parties display different combinations of outward anti-Semitism, anti-immigrant sentiments, and racism, or have been associated with such traits in the past. While this by no means represents a majority, it does indicate a disturbing trend for the European Union.

While it seems clear that far-right political movements are on the rise in Europe, the question turns to what exactly these groups want. Just like other political groups, especially across national lines, their interests vary. Overall, the focus seems to be anti-immigration, specifically based on a fear that immigrants will take away badly needed jobs from native residents. At the forefront of this movement is the Front National in France, which won the most seats in the European Parliament of any far right party.

The Front National can be characterized as one of the most moderate of the far-right parties coming to power.  Its primary focus is on nationalism instead of more overtly far-right ideologies espoused by other groups such as Golden Dawn, Jobbik, and the accused neo-Nazi NPD group in Germany; however, Front National has its roots in exactly the same kinds of dogma that these groups maintain, namely anti-Semitism and racism. This is why the far right party in Britain, the UKIP, has refused to join with them. Thus the main connection these groups all seem to have is strong support for anti-immigration measures, which entails moving away from a united Europe and its open migration policies between nations. The video below provides further explanation of the rise of far-right parties and what they believe.

Current State of the Union

Europe appears to be in serious trouble. Its native population is dwindling because of low fertility rates and an aging population. The people migrating in to fill this void, while on the whole younger, also bring different cultures and mindsets. All this has led to a wave of right-wing parties that are in favor of closing borders, ousting immigrants, and breaking away from the ailing European Union.

Europe’s economy, while growing slightly, is still badly damaged and will likely take years just to return to pre-recession levels. Additionally, fertility rates in Europe show no signs of increasing for the most part, at least in native-born citizens. Without more people to assist the aging population, immigration is also likely to continue. This immigration is also likely to continue from Eastern Europe and nations with different ethnic and cultural backgrounds, which often include large numbers of Muslims.

In the future, however, it seems possible that significant changes could come to the union. First it is possible that the UK leaves the EU. Prime Minister David Cameron has already been cornered into a vote on whether or not to stay in the union. While a vote certainly doesn’t mean anything for certain, the mere fact that it is being forced upon him does. If the UK does leave it could have additional shockwaves on other nations such as France and Germany and may also lower confidence in the EU’s future.

A lot rides on France and Germany. They both have already invested a lot in the European Union and reaped rewards from it, so it might be a stretch for them to leave; however, calls for potential European bank reforms to mimic what they have done nationally shows not only how they view their own importance in Europe, but also is a test of how the other members view them as well.

Conclusion

Far right parties are becoming increasingly popular and powerful in Europe. This has been the result of a number of factors; notably the Eurozone economic crisis, low fertility rates, an aging population, and a large influx in immigrants. Furthermore, every indication shows that these mechanisms are only likely to keep moving down this path and not reverse course. Therefore, while it is too early to give up on the grand experiment of a United States of Europe, serious reforms are needed if the experiment is to work. Reform is also necessary if European leaders hope to quell the rising influence of far-right parties and their supporters.

Resources

Primary

World Bank: Learning About the Unknown: The Economic Impacts of Aging in Europe and Central Asia

European Commission: 2014 Autumn Economic Forecast; Slow Recovery With Very Low Inflation

European Commission: Eurostat; Migration and Migrant Population Statistics

Additional

NPR: A Brief History of the EU

Forbes: Suddenly the EU’s Break-Up Has Moved From a Long Shot to a Probability

The New York Times: Study on Wealth Fuels Euro Crisis Debate in Germany

Statista: Unemployment Rate in Member States of the European Union

Eurostat: Total Fertility Rates

Vienna Institutefor International Economic Studies: Effects of Euro Crisis on Europe’s Periphery

Telegraph: Muslim Europe; The Demographic Time Bomb Transforming Our Continent

CNN: From Antwerp to Aleppo–and Back; Europe’s Nightmare

Guardian: Eurozone Growth Figures; Germany Narrowly Avoids Triple-Dip Recession

New Geography: Will Europe Hit a Demographic Turning Point?

Huffington Post: Sudden Rise of Far-Right Groups in EU Parliament Rings Alarm Bells Across Europe

USA Today: Immigration Backlah is on the Rise in Europe

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Right-Wing Groups in Europe: A Rising Force? appeared first on Law Street.

UPDATE: Press Secretary Admits that Administration should have sent higher ranking official to rally.

Less than a week after the attack at magazine Charlie Hebdo, France is still dealing with the aftermath, but Paris has showed that its people are nothing if not resilient. As an act of memorial for the slain Charlie Hebdo staff, as well as the hostages killed at a Kosher market in Paris on Friday, there was a gigantic march in the city yesterday. The rally also served as a show of unity against terrorism. It was a huge, notable world event with a ton of support from around the world. But where was the United States?

Chanting & applause in Paris as huge crowds begin unity march against terror attacks http://t.co/VeXcJu1QK6pic.twitter.com/gC9Ca8HGR0

— BBC Breaking News (@BBCBreaking) January 11, 2015

It’s estimated that about 1.6 million people took part. To us Americans, that doesn’t sound like that much, but you have to remember that France is roughly one-fifth of the size of the United States. So, comparably, that would mean around 8 million people marching here. That’s massive, and incredibly moving.

It wasn’t just Paris either. Marches took place around the world. In the French city of Lyon, roughly one-fourth of the population marched.

Of course, not everyone involved in the march was French either. Other word leaders, including British Prime Minister David Cameron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, Malian President Ibrahim Boubacar Keita, EU President Donald Tusk, and Jordan’s King Abdullah II, came as well.

Photo shows a very different perspective on world leaders at the #ParisMarchhttp://t.co/pxZoV21ZKCpic.twitter.com/VyJk1iOrxN

— The Independent (@Independent) January 12, 2015

But there was one thing notably missing from the rally: the presence of a high profile official from the United States.

There was no President Barack Obama. No Vice President Joe Biden. No Secretary of State John Kerry. The U.S. was represented by Jane Hartley, the American Ambassador to France, and Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland. No offense to Ambassador Hartley or Assistant Secretary of State Nuland, but they’re both a noticeable pay grade below the 40-plus heads of state who attended. Merkel and Cameron are two of the most prominent figures in the Western world. For god’s sake, the respective leaders of Israel and Palestine both showed up in a mini-act of solidarity in their own right, despite reports that they were asked not to. But the United States sent mostly unrecognizable figures, one of whom who was probably there anyway.

If you’re looking for a truly insipid study into the way that conspiracy theorists’ minds work, a look at the hashtag #ReasonsObamaMissedFranceRally might be in order. Theories range from Obama secretly being racist to Obama being Muslim (seriously, we’re still on that?). These are stupid theories.

But the hashtag does get one teeny, tiny thing right. The absence was not only noticeable, it was incredibly embarrassing. The White House is scrambling to come up with reasons why Obama didn’t attend, including citing his participation in a few interviews yesterday, and mentioning concerns that the security at the event would be difficult to manage. Obama has put out statements showing his support for France, but his absence from the event still looks pretty bad. Now there’s news that Secretary of State Kerry will be visiting France this week, possibly in an attempt to placate critics.

Honestly, I highly doubt there was some weird alternative motive here, but mostly just an incredibly bad PR move. Maybe the White House thought that Americans are self-absorbed enough to not really care what was happening in Paris. Or maybe Obama didn’t want to take such an overtly political stance. Or maybe Obama didn’t attend out of fear of drawing attention from ISIS, which still holds some Western hostages like John Cantlie, after all.

I honestly don’t know what it was that motivated not only President Obama to skip the rally, but also not to send a high profile emissary in his place. Sure, he’s made some heartening statements in support of France in the last few days, but he should know by now that actions speak louder than words. His actions yesterday signaled a massive underestimation of the power of solidarity, and a complete lack of foresight.

UPDATE: Press Secretary Admits that Administration should have sent higher ranking official to rally.: The White House clarified Obama’s absence from the rally on Sunday during a press conference this afternoon. White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest admitted, “I think it’s fair to say that we should have sent someone with a higher profile to be there.” He also cited security concerns as the reason that Obama himself didn’t attend.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Obama’s Absence From France Unity Rally Was a Massive PR Failure appeared first on Law Street.

Move over marijuana, there’s a new form of contraband in town.

Milk.

Not just any milk, but raw milk, which is simply milk that hasn’t been pasteurized or heated to a temperature that kills illness-causing bacteria. It’s illegal to sell raw milk directly to consumers in about half of the United States. It’s also illegal to distribute raw milk packaged for consumption across state lines. Still, raw milk advocates stand up for their right to consume it. For example, protesters from a private buying club, Grassfed on the Hill, milked a cow on the Capitol lawn back in 2011 to protest the Food and Drug Administration’s action against a Pennsylvania farmer accused of selling raw milk across state lines.

Raw milk proponents say pasteurization kills flavor, nutritional benefits, and beneficial bacteria in addition to killing the harmful bacteria that it’s supposed to eradicate. Opponents say there’s simply no proof that raw milk has any benefits that pasteurized milk can’t confer, and that drinking it isn’t worth the health risk as it contains potentially dangerous bacteria. Both sides stand firm, creating controversy around one of America’s most wholesome and common commodities.

If you haven’t heard anything about raw milk yet, chances are you will. Warnings from regulatory and public health agencies are increasing, raw milk crusaders are banding together, and politicians are jumping on board to take a stand. As early as 2012, Ron Paul was using the topic of raw milk to rally a Wisconsin crowd, as seen in the video below.

Here’s what you need to know about the raw milk debate before it escalates to a full scale food fight.

Why do we pasteurize milk in the first place?

To understand the raw milk controversy, you need some background on pasteurization and why we do it in the first place.

Before milk makes its way to a carton, it starts in a cow’s udders, which are basically saggy mammary glands. (Yuck.) Like other bodily fluids, the milk produced in these glands contains bacteria, both good and bad. Unlike many other farm foods, milk isn’t usually cooked before consumption. Since cooking kills pathogens, many people ended up drinking a cocktail of bacterial specimens before pasteurization was invented.  In the early 1800s, illnesses like tuberculosis, scarlet fever, and typhoid fever were often transmitted through milk because of the unclean dairy practices common at the time.

Luckily for the American dairy industry, the French love their wine. They love it so much that Emperor Napoleon III gave a scientist by the name of Louis Pasteur the noble task of stopping wine spoilage. Pasteur soon became famous for nuancing a process that would keep wine from spoiling without changing its flavor. It involved heating the liquid to the right temperature for the right amount of time to destroy spoilage bacteria. He called it pasteurization.

Pasteurization was applied to dairy in the late 1800s, and incidence of disease caused by milk decreased drastically. At first it was only used for dairy farmed in unsafe conditions, but soon it was leveraged to reduce risk of illness for nearly all dairies. From there, pasteurization grew to dominate the dairy industry.

What are the laws regarding raw milk?

Although individual states have always regulated their own dairy processing, the Standard Milk Ordinance, now called the Grade A Pasteurized Milk Ordinance (PMO), was implemented in 1924 to help each state meet certain standardized quality recommendations to ensure public safety.

Raw milk didn’t become a truly legal issue until the 1980s when Public Citizen filed a petition with the Food and Drug Administration that requested a ban on raw milk and raw milk products. The FDA had been trying to require that all products labeled “milk” be pasteurized since the 1970s, but met resistance and delays from the Department of Health and Human Services and certified raw milk producers. After hearing witness accounts and testimonies, the courts concluded that raw milk posed a serious threat to public health and should be banned from interstate sale.

It has been illegal to distribute raw milk from state to state ever since.

Since each state makes its own rules about the sale of raw milk, commerce within state borders gets a bit more complicated. Some states, like Florida and Virginia, prohibit all sales of raw milk. In Kentucky, you can only purchase raw goat milk straight from the farm. In New Hampshire, you can buy raw milk at a retail outlet, but it must adhere to uniform coliform standards. Things like cow-share agreements, where customers pay a fee for a percentage of cow’s milk, make things even more complicated. Alaska is an example of one state that allows “share” operations. Check out this chart for state-by-state raw milk regulations.

What Proponents Say About Raw Milk 

The supporters of raw milk tout benefits like taste and nutrition with religious fervor. Some even claim other benefits like decreased allergies and less acne.

The Taste Argument

People who’ve tasted raw milk and liked it keep going back for more. In this study of dairy producers who drink raw milk, 72 percent cite taste as their primary motive.

Raw milk lovers say it’s richer, sweeter, and more complex. Connoisseurs credit subtle flavors to a cow’s diet of natural greens. Many raw milk producers  “pasture” their cows, allowing them to eat greens as nature intended, as opposed to feeding them popular corn- and grain-based feeds.

Beyond drinking milk, raw milk cheese has a cult following, especially in France. Many of the country’s legendary cheeses are made with raw milk, which savants say imparts enticing characteristics unmatched in pasteurized varieties. In this 1998 New York Times article on the subject, cheese maker Bernard Antony said, ”Pasteurized cheese is not cheese; it’s like plastic.”

The Health Argument

In addition to being a holy grail of nuanced flavors, many raw milk advocates flock to raw milk because of its purported health benefits. They believe pasteurization kills beneficial enzymes and good bacteria. They also say raw milk can help quell body pains, reduce allergies, cure lactose intolerance, and more as evidenced from this Realmilk.com testimonials page.

Supporting studies for the claims are patchy. This study does suggest there might be an association with consumption of farm milk and asthma and allergies, but not enough to be conclusive. A Standford University School of Medicine study found that raw milk does not reduce lactose intolerance, in direct conflict with some testimonials and surveys. Why the clash between testimony and science? More research is needed to find out.

The Liberty Argument

Back in 2011, FDA officials raided Rawesome Foods and arrested its owner, James Stewart, and other raw milk suppliers for selling raw milk directly to customers. Apparently, Stewart had failed to show up for previous court appearances to face charges of shady fundraising, among other things. Even so, the arrest struck a cord with raw milk advocates who showed up to Stewart’s hearing wearing “raw milk heals” t-shirts.

They didn’t care if Stewart’s actions were illegal, they cared that he was fighting for their rights to consume raw milk. They believe that it should be individuals, not the government, who dictate what consumers put in their bodies.

What Opponents Say About Raw Milk  

Opponents, most specifically regulatory officials, argue that consuming raw milk and dairy products pose a serious threat to health, a threat that exceeds any potential benefits. And why take an unnecessary risk?

Watch the emotional video below that plays to the fear of what can come from taking unnecessary risks.

They also say that there aren’t any benefits of raw milk that you can’t get from pasteurized milk. These quotes from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Raw Milk Questions and Answers page address some common raw milk proponent beliefs:

Many studies have shown that pasteurization does not significantly change the nutritional value of milk — pasteurized milk is rich in proteins, carbohydrates, and other nutrients. Heat slightly affects a few of the vitamins found in milk– thiamine, vitamin B12, and vitamin C– but milk is only a minor source of these vitamins.

While it’s true that the heating process of pasteurization does inactivate some enzymes in milk, the enzymes in raw animal milk are not thought to be important in human health.

There are no health benefits from drinking raw milk that cannot be obtained from drinking pasteurized milk that is free of disease-causing bacteria. The process of pasteurization of milk has never been found to be the cause of chronic diseases, allergies, or developmental or behavioral problems.

Why do they say raw milk is such a threat to health?

Unlike many other farm foods (e.g. milk and eggs), milk isn’t usually cooked before consumption, so there isn’t a step to kill illness-causing bacteria. Milk’s low acid content and high protein levels make it easier for pathogens to grow.

Even if milk comes out of the cow without bacteria, it can become contaminated easily during the farming process. Dairy farms breed pathogens naturally, even when they take necessary precautions. Pathogens can be transferred on multiple occasions on the farm:

• The milk might accidentally come in contact with cow feces
• The cow might have an udder infection (mastitis)
• The cow might have an undetected illness
• Bacteria on the cow’s skin might get into the milk
• Dirt from the barns and processing equipment might get on the milk
• Animal pests living in barns, like rats and insects, might contaminate the milk
• Humans with soiled hands or clothing might contaminate the milk

For these reasons and more, officials cite that pasteurization is the only way to make sure the pathogens in milk won’t pose a threat to human health. They say even farmers who follow hygienic practices and test their raw milk cannot guarantee safety.

Supporting Data

According to the CDC, outbreaks caused by raw milk  have increased from 30 in 2007-2009 to 51 in 2010-2012. The outbreaks are most commonly caused by Campylobacter, Escherichia coli, and Salmonella and include symptoms like diarrhea, vomiting, muscle aches, and fever. Relative to the amount of raw milk that is consumed, the risk of an outbreak from raw milk is 150 times greater than the risk of an outbreak from pasteurized milk.

Shouldn’t science stop this debate?

Advocates from both sides point to studies, surveys, testimonials, and data to prove their points, but still each side clings to their beliefs with evangelical conviction. In a literature review requested by the Maryland House of Delegates’ Health and Government Operations Committee, the authors point to a need for both raw milk advocates and regulatory agencies to be open to discussion and compromise. Surely both sides of this contentious debate can find some common ground in the future.

Will raw milk become a substance relegated to the black market? Will federal lawmakers cave and loosen boundaries on interstate trade? Only time will tell, but 2015 promises to be an interesting year for those on both sides of the aisle in the raw milk debate.

Resources

Primary

CDC: Raw Milk Questions and Answers

Rev Sci Tech Off Int Epiz: Milk Pasteurisation and Safety: A Brief History and Update

CDC: Increased Outbreaks Associated with Nonpasteurized Milk, United States, 2007–2012

NIH: Food Safety Hazards Associated With Consumption of Raw Milk.

NIH: A Survey of Foodborne Pathogens in Bulk Tank Milk and Raw Milk Consumption Among Farm Families in Pennsylvania.

CDC: Raw (Unpasteurized) Milk

U.S. District Court: Public Citizen v Heckler

Additional

New Yorker: Raw Deal

Chris Kresser: Raw Milk Reality: Benefits of Raw Milk

How Stuff Works: How Pasteurization Works

Raw Milk Facts: State by State Raw Milk Legislation

USDA: How Do Cows Make Milk?

The New York Times: How We Poison Our Children

NPR: Unlocking France’s Secrets to Safer Raw Milk Cheese

The New York Times: The French Resist Again: This Time, Over Cheese

Marler Clark: A Legal History of Raw Milk in the United States

Ashley Bell

Ashley Bell communicates about health and wellness every day as a non-profit Program Manager. She has a Bachelor’s degree in Business and Economics from the College of William and Mary, and loves to investigate what changes in healthy policy and research might mean for the future. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What’s the Deal With Raw Milk? appeared first on Law Street.

Update: 3:40 pm
Update: 1:30 pm
Update: 12:28 pm

As Paris is still reeling from the tragedy at satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo on Wednesday, and the manhunt is still on to find the brothers believed to responsible, a second incident has unfolded within the city limits themselves.

There were two hostage situations in France today. One was Northeast of Paris in Dammartin-en-Goële where it was believed that the Kouachi brothers are holed up. They ended up in an industrial estate, and they took a hostage.

Meanwhile, another shooting and hostage situation occurred in eastern Paris, inside a Kosher market. The suspect in that case is believed to have shot a policewoman yesterday, and is linked to the Kouachi brothers. The suspect in that case is named Amedy Coulibaly, and reports say he has a female accomplice Hayat Boumeddiene. Boumeddiene is Coulibaly’s girlfriend, and it is believed that Coulibaly may have shared a mentor with Cherif Kouachi, explaining the link between the two situations.

#PHOTO These police images show Hayat Boumeddiene (L) and Amedy Coulibaly (R), suspects in the death of a policewoman pic.twitter.com/qZXyEXlqnv

— Agence France-Presse (@AFP) January 9, 2015

It seems very clear that these two incidents are linked, according to the AP:

A police official told the Associated Press the gunman is threatening to kill hostages if authorities launch an assault on the small printing warehouse northeast of the citywhere the two brothers suspected in the shooting on Charlie Hebdo are holed up in the second hostage standoff in France on Friday.

In response to these two separate hostage situations, the police moved  to save the hostages. At the same time, they attacked, sending in explosives. Le Monde and Reuters are reporting that the Kouachi brothers are dead, although that is not confirmed, and the status of the hostages are unknown. There are also reports from the grocery store that the “hostage-taker,” presumably Coulibaly, is also dead, although Boumeddiene’s status appears to be unknown.

The status of the hostages from both standoffs appear to be unknown as well, although there are reports of emergency vehicles arriving at the scene of the market.

Update: 3:40 PM: The hostage situation in Montpellier does not appear to be related to the earlier situations in Paris, but rather a robbery gone wrong. Montpellier Prosecutor Christophe Barrett has confirmed that this is a wholly separate situation, and it’s under control.

Meanwhile, French cops continue their search for Hayat Boumeddiene, the Kosher market hostage-taker’s accomplice.

Update: 1:30 PM: There are currently reports of a hostage situation in a jewelry store in Montpellier, France. Montpellier is located in the south of France. There’s no word yet if there’s any connection to the terrorist attacks or earlier hostage situations in Paris and northeast of Paris that ended with the hostage takers killed earlier today. However, there are believed to be two people held in the jewelry store.

FRANCE: A hostage situation is being reported right now inside a jewelry store in Montpellier, France. PHOTOS – pic.twitter.com/x2jDkxNd1X

— KolHaolam (@KolHaolam) January 9, 2015

Update: 12:28 PM: Multiple news sources are now reporting that at least four of the hostages taken at the supermarket are dead. Two cops are also being reported as injured. In addition, some reports are saying that Hayat Boumeddiene escaped the supermarket, although that remains unconfirmed.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Two Hostage Situations in France: Suspects Reported Killed appeared first on Law Street.

Just over 24 hours after the attack on French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, the search for the attackers wages on. The two main suspects are brothers Cherif and Said Kouachi, both in their early thirties. They are French citizens who visited Syria this summer, although whether they had any connections to terrorist groups while there is unclear.

UPDATE: Two Charlie Hebdo Suspects Last Seen In Northern French Town #ParisShootings – http://t.co/sE6VO1lIQV pic.twitter.com/tXl0ulo6ZA

— MV Ortega (@MVOrtega1) January 8, 2015

Cherif Kouachi has had legal problems before; he was convicted of helping funnel fighters to Iraq.  There was originally thought to be a third man, an 18 year old, working with them, but he has since turned himself in, and reports say that he’s the brother-in-law of one of the main suspects. French media is now questioning his involvement.

After fleeing Paris, the Kouachi brothers are believed to have held up a gas station, stealing food and fuel. They may have also shot a police officer in a Parisian suburb, but that’s unconfirmed at this point. 

The manhunt has now turned to the areas north of Paris. A town called Crépy-en-Valois, to the northeast of Paris, has become the focus, as reports speculate that the Kouachi brothers are holed up in some sort of home or other building. While it appears that police are narrowing in, the search is by no means over. 

Meanwhile, acts of support and defiance have been seen all over the city, the country, and the world at large. Other journalists, cartoonists, and members of the media reacted in solidarity yesterday, for example: 

Cartoonists draw in solidarity with #CharlieHebdo: http://t.co/uWJgT9BUQG pic.twitter.com/EXixSDAHnx — CBS This Morning (@CBSThisMorning) January 8, 2015

RT @Beltrew: A few of the best cartoons drawn & shared in solidarity with #CharlieHebdo after yesterday’s massacre pic.twitter.com/4Dq68GL9mT — Anton La Guardia (@AntonLaGuardia) January 8, 2015

12 powerful political cartoons responding to the Charlie Hebdo attack http://t.co/neUlubZmW9pic.twitter.com/Pb8fErXv5t

— Vox (@voxdotcom) January 8, 2015

Amazingly, Charlie Hebdo has announced that it is going to go to print next week as planned, according to one of its columnists, Dr. Patrick Pelloux. Despite the fact that eight of the staff members were killed, including editor-in-chief Stephane Charbonnier, those who survived plan to honor their memory by showing that those who attacked did not win.

And not only will the publication print, it will print even more than usual. The normal Charlie Hebdo circulation is around 60,000–it plans on printing one million copies for this issue. It will, however, be half the length of a regular issue.

Google and French newspaper publishers are donating money to help print the issue. The distributors are not planning on charging Charlie Hebdo for their services. Pelloux said the following about the decision to move forward:

It’s very hard. We are all suffering, with grief, with fear, but we will do it anyway because stupidity will not win.

These acts of bravery, of solidarity, and of support prove that.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Day Two: Manhunt for Shooters in Charlie Hebdo Tragedy appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

Sometimes I run across a story that gives me a chuckle that I feel needs to be shared. This is one of those times. Last Tuesday evening in Paris, France, two men walked into the Cartier store located on one of the most iconic streets in the world, the Champs-Élysées, and robbed the place. Not only did they steal from Cartier but they led police on a brief chase and even took a hostage.

Both men were armed with AK-47s when they walked into Cartier demanding the jewelry be taken out of the display cases. Of course the men were interrupted by the sirens of the police who were on their way. The men dashed out of Cartier with the store manager as their hostage, but they let him go so the two guys could hop on their getaway scooter. The robbers fired shots into the air before losing their balance and toppling over. Forced to flee on foot, the robbers eventually made their way into a hair salon where they took a second store manager hostage.

One hundred French police were mobilized to the hair salon–even a helicopter was sent out. A hostage negotiator was able to talk the guys into releasing the manager and turning themselves in. The whole episode went down in under two hours.

One police officer was wounded by a bullet fragment and of course one of the suspects was injured during the scooter fall. France has seen several high-profile robberies of luxury jewelry stores in recent years. I wonder if this is a trend? Paris does have some of the best high-end shopping in the world!

I love a story like this because it is so dramatic and feels like it really should have been a scene in a movie and not reality. Only in Paris would men rob a Cartier store, flee on a scooter, and give up in a matter of hours. Oh how I love the French!

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Cartier Jewelry Heist in Paris Sparks Hostage Capture and Police Chase appeared first on Law Street.

A Colorado High School is being sued for denying a student group the ability to gather for prayer. The Alliance Defending Freedom, a group that describes itself as a non-profit legal organization advocating for the free practice of faith, is suing the school district along with the principal and assistant principal of Pine Creek High School. They allegedly stopped a Christian student group from holding group prayers on the grounds of separation of church and state, Reuters reported. The Alliance says they are violating the students’ First Amendment rights.

The Alliance said in a news release that the informal prayer group would meet to pray, sing, and discuss religion in an unoccupied choir room during a free period, when students are supposedly allowed to meet up with friends and hang out on school grounds. Senior Chase Windebank contacted the Alliance after he unsuccessfully appealed to Principal Kolette Back about the ban, who told him that they could only hold group prayers before or after school, but not during school.

The Alliance then sent a letter in October to Colorado’s Academy School District 20 arguing that Pine Creek is violating the prayer group’s First Amendment rights by restricting their religious freedom. The district responded by saying that no student group is technically allowed to meet during school time. On Friday, the Alliance filed a First Amendment-based suit anyway, saying Windebank’s group should be able to pray freely during the free period.

Public schools themselves are not allowed to hold sanctioned prayers because of the separation of church and state outlined in the First amendment. But Windebank’s group is supposedly informal, thus the group’s prayers aren’t technically school-sanctioned. One could say that since students are free to hang out freely during the free period, they should be allowed to meet to pray. One could also say that for a public school to allow a prayer group to go on violates the separation of church and state. But technically the state (by way of Pine Creek High School) has nothing to do with the prayer group. It’s just Windebank and his friends.

The Pine Creek case may be debatable, but it’s only a small story in a larger issue. The separation of church and state is a principle of secularism that can inadvertently lead to misguided policies that ironically go against secularism. An example of this phenomenon is France’s laws banning conspicuous religious symbols in public schools and banning veils that cover the face in any public place. The laws have been seen as de facto bans specifically on Muslim headwear for women, such as the niqab and the hijab. Proponents have defended the laws as protecting French identity and values, while others say they obstruct religious freedom.

The irony is that secularism and the separation of church and state mean that governments are neutral toward religion. Just like they can’t sponsor religious practices, they also can’t hinder them. It means no religion, not anti-religion. So when it comes to Pine Creek High School’s ban on Windebank’s prayer group, the question is whether or not by asserting the separation of church and state, it means that the school is actually restricting students’ freedom. The separation of church and state, at its core, never requires citizens to give up their freedoms. The prayer group was initially asked by the principals to stop meeting during school hours because what it was doing was religious. By doing that, the school could inadvertently be going against the very principle of separation. Whether or not that’s true, the lawsuit will decide.

Zaid Shoorbajee

Zaid Shoorbajee is a an undergraduate student at The George Washington University majoring in journalism and economics. He is from the Washington, D.C. area and likes reading and writing about international affairs, politics, business and technology (especially when they intersect). Contact Zaid at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Colorado School Prayer Ban: Limiting Religious Freedom? appeared first on Law Street.

Previous fun facts about French life have let us in on a little secret: French people are picky. Each French city’s mayor or maire possesses the authority to establish policies that maintain public order. In Paris, rules vary according to arrondissement, or district.

So, the French are detail oriented. They like their rules and that’s okay.

However, their latest regulation—on copyright—is so strict that it’s funny. La Tour Eiffel, the Eiffel Tower’s official website states that although snapping some photos of the famous landmark is alright in the daylight, pictures are off limits when the sun goes down. My deepest condolences to anyone who ever dreamed of having a nighttime Parisian wedding photo shoot. The website explains, “its various illuminations are subject to author’s rights as well as brand rights. Usage of these images is subject to prior request from the “Société d’Exploitation de la Tour Eiffel.”

The structure of the Eiffel Tower itself is in the public domain. What isn’t in the public domain is the show put on at night during which different color lights are projected onto the landmark. That, instead, belongs to an artist who takes liberties and utilizes style to determine which lights, colors, speed the illuminations take place. Therefore, a reproduction of the work would require permission—and perhaps compensation—of said artist.

Essentially, it’s a time issue. The Eiffel Tower was built long before pretty lights were shone on it. This EU Information Society Directive includes a clause asserting that buildings in public spaces are to be in the public domain. However, France is one of the countries that refrained from adopting the directive into its law.  Italy and Belgium also refused the directive and retained their stricter policies. Belgium experiences the same issues with its Atomium, delineating on its website that “the image of the Atomium is protected and can only be used under certain conditions…Prices depend on whether it is to be used for a cultural, educational or commercial purpose.”

One must ask: when copyright law restricts something so large, so famous, and so iconic, how can it truly be enforced?

Wikipedia pages are being careful about it. Atomium pages include censored images or photographs of Atomium models. Poor Instagram will probably never see the legal light show. Illegal, however, can be found by a simple search of #eiffeltower. Google Images is chock-full o’ examples.

Ultimately, the regulation probably isn’t causing any tourists severe angst. That doesn’t, however, detract from the fact that it is copyrighted and nighttime Eiffel Tower pictures constitute infringement. We may take for granted our ability to legally Instagram post Lady Liberty at 3:00am with abandon.

The post Your Nighttime Eiffel Tower Pictures Are Illegal appeared first on Law Street.

I’m sort of a walking stereotype. I have my phone in my hand at all times, I sleep with it in my bed even though I know that’s bad, and I’m constantly checking my texts, social media, and email. And that’s never really bothered me — it seems normal to me. I am used to being accessible essentially 24/7. I think that’s a norm that a lot of us Americans have gotten used to, and I doubt that that’s going to change, but apparently some of our European friends have started rejecting the concept of 24/7 connectivity.

Germany is considering a law to ban work-related emails after hours. The potential legislation is being pushed by labor unions, and recently the German Labor Minister Andrea Nahles ordered a study to look into the negative effects of work-related stress. While that study isn’t done yet, and legislation won’t even be proposed until those findings are released, Nahles stated,

There is an undeniable relationship between constant availability and the increase of mental illness. We have commissioned the Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health to work out whether it is possible to set load thresholds. We need universal and legally binding criteria.

Germany actually isn’t the first country to consider a late-night work email ban. Earlier this spring there were rumors that France had passed a similar law. France’s restrictions on work are actually very interesting already. Most workers are limited to a 35-hour work week. There’s actually no law restricting work emails after business hours, but there was an agreement signed earlier this year with some unions and employers agreeing to not contact employees outside of work hours.

So, if Germany and France are considering these email restrictions, will something similar ever make it to the U.S.? Nah, probably not.

A lot of it has to do with German and French culture in comparison to American. For many, the dominating idea in the United States is that the more you work, the more productive you are. Often employees who stay late are viewed as going the extra mile, while those who rush out the door at 5:00 are not as valued. But what a lot of people forget is that more work doesn’t necessarily mean more productivity.

The culture in nations like Germany and France is different though. In those countries, needing to stay after to finish your work creates the impression that you’re not productive enough during the day to finish your work in the time allotted. Thomas C. Kohler, a German legal expert explained, saying:

With Germans, while they’re at work, they only work — you’ll rarely hear a radio in the background. They consider it a sign of inefficiency if you cannot complete a day’s work in that day. So if you’re staying late at the office, it would often be regarded as a sign of your inability to get the work done.

So while some of our peer nations have shorter work weeks and are now moving toward no work emails after hours, I doubt it’s going to happen in the United States anytime soon. It would require too big of a cultural shift, and we Americans are just a little too attached to our smartphones.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Shreyans Bhansali via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Germany Considers Ban on After Hours Work Emails appeared first on Law Street.

A new, extremely controversial tax was just ruled constitutional in France. The law has been nicknamed a “millionaire tax” and requires that companies pay a 75% tax on salaries exceeding 1 million euros. Others have called it a “supertax.” The tax is not on the individuals who receive the salaries, but on the companies that pay such exorbitant sums. Although the government originally did try to place the tax on individuals, it was heavily protested and ruled unconstitutional to put such a heavy burden on an individual.

This tax is part of President Francois Hollande’s promise to make sure that the rich citizens of France do more to help out the poor. During the most recent 2012 presidential election, Hollande beat incumbent President Nicolas Sarkozy on promises to go after the rich, fix the deficit, and ameliorate income inequality.

The tax will only be in place for 2 years, 2013 and 2014, and is said to be more of a symbolic statement than an actual attempt at raising revenue. According to Hollande, the tax will only affect 470 companies in total.

The tax has drawn a lot of protest from entrepreneurs and companies with CEOs or other top ranking officials who make more than 1 million Euros per year. However it has also drawn protest from football teams. Top footballers can make up to 12 million euros per year, so there are many that make 1 million or more. As a result, many football teams are protesting the millionaire tax. Some have even threatened to strike if the tax went through.

The tax itself is not just a flat 75% rate, but rather closer to 50%. There are other taxes and social contributions included, however, so all said and done it will total about 75%. That being said, it was also written into the law that the tax paid by a given company cannot exceed 5% of that company’s turnover. Given that the tax is intended to be symbolic of a need for the rich to contribute to the nation, the 5% limit makes sense.

The tax’s constitutionality was challenged, so the law was brought before the Constitutional Council. The Constitutional Council is one of the checks and balances present in the French system of government. Its closest America counterpart, for context, would probably be the Supreme Court. The Constitutional Council’s responsibility is to ensure that new laws accord with the provisions of the constitution. It is composed of any former French Presidents who wish to sit on it, as well as a number of appointees from the Executive and Legislative Branches.

The Constitutional Council ruled earlier this week that the law was in fact constitutional, and the government was authorized to move forward on enforcing it.

The ruling on the supertax, or millionaire’s tax, was seemingly the last step in what has been a contentious battle in France. When Hollande’s plans to create the supertax was first introduced in 2012, famed actor Gerard Depardieu actually fled the country.

Hollande has had a rough year, and the French economy is still pretty stagnant. Hollande’s effort to make the rich contribute will probably pay off among the people, but may come back to bite him in the next election when he looks for rich contributors.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Images Money/TaxRebate.org.uk via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post French Court Authorizes “Millionaire Tax” appeared first on Law Street.

Democrats are usually the ones to promote more government control, but President Nixon was a Republican. Though he achieved many things during his presidency, like most people, he is remembered for his scandal. The Watergate Scandal was named after the Watergate Complex in Washington D.C., the location of the Democratic Party headquarters where Nixon’s men were caught breaking in. This was not the limit of the illicit activities Nixon led. His surveillance was far more meticulous, bugging offices of his opponents and creating transcripts from the tapes. Public outrage fueled the nation, and talks of impeachment spewed from most mouths. After much denial, Nixon accepted the blame, publicly apologized for his mistake, and acquiesced to the public consensus about his misbehavior by resigning. The matter of right and wrong was obvious.

Less obvious but very similar is the situation with the National Security Agency. They are not only analyzing domestically, but also internationally. NSA’s interactions with other nations are mirroring Nixon’s ideology. NSA permits the US to monitor our competitors and alter our diplomacy respectively. Although NSA’s spying had been justified as a security precaution against terrorism, NSA is towing a fine line. Germany, France, Mexico, and Brazil have all officially complained to the US about NSA’s interference. The famous fugitive and ex-NSA member, Edward Snowden claimed that NSA was monitoring the phone calls of 35 world leaders, among many other political officials, sparking the debate about NSA’s morality. Since then, resentment, both foreign and domestic, has prevailed.

Last month, Dilma Rousseff, the Brazilian president, spoke at the UN general assembly, bringing to light her discontentment with NSA activities pertaining to her nation, “tampering in such a manner in the affairs of other countries is a breach of international law and is an affront of the principles that must guide the relations among them, especially among friendly nations. A sovereign nation can never establish itself to the detriment of another sovereign nation. The right to safety of citizens of one country can never be guaranteed by violating fundamental human rights of citizens of another country,” she condemned. The NSA, she announced, collected personal information of Brazilian citizens, along with information about specific industries, primarily oil industries. The German Chancellor, Merkel also confronted the US about NSA recent activities, “we need to have trust in our allies and partners, and this must now be established once again. I repeat that spying among friends is not at all acceptable against anyone, and that goes for every citizen in Germany.”

Similarly, Le Monde, a reputable French newspaper, released information on NSA’s french metadata, “the NSA graph shows an average of 3 million data intercepts per day with peaks at almost 7 million on 24 December 2012 and 7 January 2013.” Le Monde also claimed the NSA planted bugs in the French embassy in Washington, and hacked tens of millions of computers in France this year. Prior to the news leak by Le Monde, French foreign minister, Mr Fabius, told the US president,”I said again to John Kerry what Francois Hollande told Barack Obama, that this kind of spying conducted on a large scale by the Americans on its allies is something that is unacceptable.” With the shocking new information about NSA’s unlawful actions being published, the situation,  on US-French relations are exacerbated.

The difference in our ease to distinguish right and wrong in the Watergate scandal and the NSA security breaches test our morals. Are American morals contingent to our context only? Our action so far indicate that spying domestically on our opponents is a mortal sin, but internationally, it is okay. The freedoms we are allotted and the restrictions we face are variables of time, as is our living constitution, but what about our morals? The Watergate Scandal demonstrated American tenacity for ethics and caused for an eradication of a wrongdoer, will the NSA breach result in a fix too?- Will government policies adjust to current times to keep stable our set of values?

 [Press TV] [BBC] [Le Monde] [Euronews]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Mike Herbst via Flickr]

Vasudha Sadana

The post NSA: A Repeat of Watergate appeared first on Law Street.